Radical Behaviorism Will Not Rescue the Science Or Practice of Behavior Analysis 19 Thomas S

Journal of ehaviorologyJ ournal Volume 22, Numbers 1of & 2, Spring &ehaviorology Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 1 issn 2331–0774 A journal of tibi: The International Behaviorology Institute

Behaviorology Conductologia Xingwei Xue Gedragsologie Behaviourology Contents ote: Prior to Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring 2013) the Journal of Behaviorology went by the name of Behaviorology Today, which occasionally published fully peer–reviewed articles, explicitly so labeled. Beginning with Volume 15, Number 1, in January 2012, all material receives full peer review. See the “Submission Guidelines” for details. Editorial 2 Ten Commandments of Natural Science 3 Stephen F. Ledoux

SPECIAL SECTION ON “Behavioral Materialism”: A Rose by Another Name: Behavioral Materialism 13 Joseph E. Morrow Behaviorology and Dialectical Materialism: On the Way to Dialogue 15 Alexandr A. Fedorov Tempest in a Teapot: Relabeling Radical Behaviorism Will Not Rescue the Science or Practice of Behavior Analysis 19 Thomas S. Critchfield & L. Kimberly Epting The Name of the Rose 23 Edward K. Morris The Behaviorology Movement Diﬀers from Other Behavioral Organizations: Comments Prompted by Joseph Morrow’s Behavioral Materialism Paper 31 Lawrence E. Fraley Radical is Right for Behaviorism 33 John B. Ferreira

Syllabus Directory* 37 Editorial Review Board & Guest Reviewers / Back Issues & Donations / Visit www.behaviorology.org / Journal & Website Copyrights 38 Submission Guidelines 39 TIBIA Memberships Costs & Criteria & Beneﬁts 40 TIBIA Membership Cost Details (and Application Form) 41 TIBI / TIBIA Purposes 42 About Behaviorology, TIBI, and Journal of Behaviorology 43 Some TIBI Board Member Contacts 44 ______* This issue does not contain any new or updated tibi course syllabi. New syllabi, or updates of previous syllabi, may appear in future issues. (See the Syllabus Directory for details.)

Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2 Spring & Fall 2019 Page 2 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 Editorial James O’Heare (Action Editor for this dual issue)

This issue of the Journal of Behaviorology consists of behaviorological eVorts, behaviorology might also of two parts, a separate article and a Special Section. be thought of more broadly as “the natural science of Through some natural–science rules, the article behavior.” This would include all species of animal, emphasize the philosophical underpinnings of natural including humans, but would exclude the “behavior” of sciences, including behaviorology, which may tend to rocks and plants and so on. Implying that behaviorology get less attention than some behaviorologists believe is is the natural science of “human behavior” limits the beneficial. The Special Section relates more explicitly to scope of consideration unnecessarily. the philosophy of science underpinning behaviorology Second, the way behaviorologists sometimes talk and the naming of this philosophy, with the older term, can seem to express or imply that behaviorology is or radical behaviorism, and the newer term “behavioral ought to be constituted of only the basic natural science materialism,” under consideration. of behavior, while the contingency–engineering eVorts The separate article, Ten Commandments of should be left to “Applied Behavior Analysts.” Some might Natural Science by Stephen F. Ledoux, adapts the misconstrue this article that way, which could establish long, multi–cultural history behind the concept a potentially dangerous precedent. I see behaviorology of “ten commandments”—which behaviorologists as the comprehensive “science and technology of are more familiar with under the rubric of rule– environment–behavior functional relations” where governed behavior—to expose a gradual decline in “technology” relates broadly to include the contingency– the consideration of the assumptions, tenets, and engineering practices of applications and interventions. constraints of natural science as a foundation of natural– Misconstruing the contingency–engineering branch of science disciplines including behaviorology. This article behaviorology as a field still tied topsychology (at least by functions to reinstate sets of contingencies that can re– its claim) could set a precedent that may seem of minor evoke the inclusion of basic philosophical considerations importance now, but could be used to the detriment of in natural–science education. The article evokes interest– behaviorology, and even natural science, at some point related behaviors in myself (i.e., this particular biological in the future. For the same reasons that behaviorologists unit exhibiting this verbal behavior) because it is not just retain their disciplinary separateness to protect it as a another restatement of the tenets of radical behaviorism comprehensive and completely independent discipline, / behavioral materialism (e.g., recognizing only natural the applications of basic science should be encompassed events), which would also have been a worthy endeavor, in that protection. but rather it provides a set of rules for operating more The other articles in this issue constitute a broadly within any natural–science discipline. For Special Section on the relative benefits of the terms example the inclusion of respecting the perspectives of radical behaviorism and behavioral materialism, with others who may operate under diVerent disciplinary commentaries. The first article in this Special Section, contingencies is laudable. This article also folds the “A rose by another name: behavioral materialism,” relatively newer Law of Cumulative Complexity tenet by Joseph E. Morrow, provides the foundation for the into the mix, making it a more complete and current commentaries. In his paper Morrow establishes a case contribution to our disciplinary literature. for considering the term, Behavioral Materialism, as a The Ten Commandments of Natural Science article replacement for the current name of the philosophy of evokes some discipline–wide considerations from which science of behaviorology, Radical Behaviorism. Several we might benefit by highlighting them here. This is articles commenting on Morrow’s paper follow. Their not to say that the opinions expressed in this article titles and authors appear on the previous page, in the necessarily diVer from those of other behaviorologists, Table of Contents. Additional commentaries on this topic, but the issues have appeared, and further consideration as In Response articles, will be published in the next issues might be reinforcing for other behavior eVorts. of the Journal of Behaviorology. Readers are urged to First, behaviorology is often framed as the “natural submit articles, brief or in–depth, for inclusion in the science of human behavior.” Though this may indeed next issues, along with articles on other topics; see the constitute the vast majority of the current emphasis Submission Guidelines in this issue. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 3 Ten Commandments of Natural Science Stephen F. Ledoux*

Abstract: Under various names, the natural science of behavior expanded during the twentieth century and beyond, albeit under the radar of most natural scientists and the public. Its more visible contingency–engineering applications and interventions also expanded in this time frame. Still, the need for its potential contributions to solving humanity’s growing global problems, as part of the team with other natural sciences, prompted calls from other natural scientists for a “natural science of human behavior,” for they were unaware of its 100–year–old existence. Some currently pertinent practices (e.g., polluting, and sustainability) aVect human survival, but human understanding of these practices suVers from misunderstanding the human–behavior components of the practices. Extending education in this natural science reduces this misunderstanding and supports solving global problems. Some natural scientists, however, also worry about negative eVects from the reduced familiarity that newer graduates have with the philosophy of natural science and the contributions of this philosophy to successful scientific endeavors, a cultural contingency also aVecting human survival. To address such concerns, ten commandments of natural science provide a brief prompt for increasing—in education and practice— coverage, understanding, and appreciation of naturalism, the philosophy of natural science.

The concept of “commandments,” including “ten variables, such as stimuli, including verbal stimuli, commandments,” has a long, multi–cultural history. inducing behaviors that produce consequences that aVect It arose as an example of the many codes of laws that the function of various stimuli). Some sets of contingencies appeared in documented form in the history of humanity concern broad areas of independent and dependent soon after the appearance of writing. A complex variables such as the area that includes (a) the basic natural contingency, one that induces writing and law codes, science that covers human nature and human behavior, involves the improvement in social relations among (b) the documented stringent need for this current but individuals that occurred as human groups grew ever generally invisible natural science, and (c) some constraints larger and more dependent on “rules” to govern their from philosophy of natural science. interactions (i.e., “rules” as statements of contingencies, Other sets of contingencies concern more narrowly and described in Chapter 21 of Ledoux, 2017). Written focused areas of functional relations, such as investing records and law codes produced greater improvement in or motorcycle maintenance. For many such areas, social–relation management than did oral records and broad or narrow, specifying “ten commandments” law codes. takes advantage of the potent and long–standing (i.e., Adapting the long–standing cultural format of “ten thousands of years old) verbal cultural contingency— commandments” eases the overall challenge of stating embodied in the term “commandments”—that widely helpful rules with respect to behavior that responds to a prompts various behaviors through generalization of range of complex contingencies (i.e., sets of functional ancient and contemporary versions of the rule of law relations in which the occurrence of some variables are with implied if not specified consequences. One can contingent, or dependent, on the occurrence of other readily find a range of topics already subjected to the ______*The author, Emeritus Professor of Behaviorology at suny–Canton, thanks not only the anonymous peer reviewers but also the peer reviewers (John Ferreira, Lawrence Fraley, Werner Matthijs, James O’Heare, and William Trumble) whose signed comments enabled interactions that particularly helped improve earlier versions of this work. The books and journal pages at www.behaviorology. org provide details or access to many of the cited references plus many other related resources. Address correspondence regarding this paper to [email protected].

Key words: Philosophy of science, naturalism, behaviorism, radical behaviorism, behavioral materialism, behaviorology, The Experimental Analysis of Behavior (teab), Applied Behavior Analysis (aba), natural–science education Page 4 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 common notion of “ten commandments.” These Some of these quality–controlling commandments topics can extend widely from “ten commandments occur as part of naturalism (the philosophy of science of investing” to “ten commandments of motorcycle of natural sciences in general) and others occur as part maintenance” and even, as here, to “ten commandments of “radical behaviorism” (the more specific philosophy of of natural science.” This usage of “ten commandments” science of the natural science of behavior, behaviorology). with respect to natural science shares only the age–old, It is not radical in the sense of extremist; it is radical world–wide and multi–cultural, secular rule–of–law in the sense of comprehensive, compared with earlier tradition, not the superstition or mysticism of any behaviorisms (Ledoux, 2017, p. 15; alternative labels religious usages of “ten commandments.” to “radical behaviorism” are again under discussion, as Those considerations also occur in the context of other articles in this issue—the combined Spring/Fall discussing both what many people see as the most serious 2019, Volume 22 issue of Journal of Behaviorology—and circumstances confronting humanity today—solving subsequent issues show). global problems in the available time frame before their Then again, some of these quality–controlling eVects overtake us—and some supporting activities commandments consist of fairly standard philosophy that help make solving global problems possible. Here, of natural science components while others consist description of the foundations of these supporting of components made particularly valuable due to the activities takes the form of Ten Commandments of Natural current problems confronting humanity. When such Science and the educational eVorts that enable these Ten commandments appropriately aVect behavior, then the Commandments to make a diVerence. After presenting value of natural sciences, especially behaviorology, to these Ten Commandments, some provided elaboration humanity can, and predictably will, noticeably increase, on a few of them shows their direct relationship with this helping solve global problems and so helping to save overall challenge. humanity from the disasters that otherwise currently threaten to overtake the global culture. Studies of basic behaviorology, especially if occurring before studies of Philosophy of Natural Science and behaviorology’s contingency–engineering practices (e.g., Ten Commandments in Applied Behavior Analysis: aba) prepare people well for the future. In the usa one can say “science” and “scientist” and be Some natural scientists express concern, however, fairly assured that these terms are understood as “natural about what seems to be a trend over the last several science” and “natural scientist.” For example, asking decades in the education—both undergraduate and audiences in the usa to list some sciences nearly always especially graduate—of natural scientists and engineers. results in a list of traditional natural sciences (e.g., physics, The trend of concern is the reduced coverage of, and so chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology). Elsewhere, reduced familiarity with, philosophy of natural science however, this is not always the case. For example, the and its contribution to successful scientific activity. theology faculty at the university in Leuven, Belgium, Meanwhile contingencies across society drive scientific oYcially goes by the name, “Faculty of Theological endeavors to solve global as well as individual and local Sciences” (Werner Matthijs, personal communication). problems, virtually all of which involve human behavior To avoid misunderstanding or confusion, the phrases components in the problems or the solutions, or both “natural science” and “natural scientist” always appear here (Ledoux, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2018a). So, some alarm at the in full, rather than in the abbreviated forms “science” and trend for less philosophy of natural science seems justified, “scientist,” because the Ten Commandments discussed especially in light of current knowledge concerning the here apply more broadly than just in the usa. substantive, quality–controlling, stimulus–control role These Ten Commandments reflect components of the exerted by the components of the philosophy of natural philosophy of natural science, which is the verbal behavior, science in the contingencies controlling the behaviors arising from the long–term and repeated successes of that constitute natural science. natural–science research and applications, that describes That knowledge about the value of philosophy of the foundations that guide the natural sciences. Such natural science comes from interpretive extensions of the successes depend on adherence to the rules stated or discoveries and findings of the natural science of behavior implied in the contingencies that compel these verbal– that B. F. Skinner called The Experimental Analysis behavior commandments. The commandments prompt of Behavior (teab; see Skinner, 1957, 2012). Many now adherence, because they improve the quality of natural know this discipline as behaviorology, the label in use science practice. By exerting such quality–control, these for the last 30 or more years to name the natural science commandment rules lead successfully to more beneficial of behavior. When some practitioners of this science natural–science products and services. formally separated, in 1987, from a shared history with Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 5 psychology, they adopted this name for the science. The and Skinner, 1953, 1974. The books and journal pages separation produced an independence from psychology at www.behaviorology.org provide details or access to that was necessary because, as a discipline, psychology many of these resources. requires allegiance to various mystical or spontaneously Another trend, perhaps of greater import, concerns occurring inner agential causes for behavior, and focuses the reduction—compared to requirements several not on the independent variables of which behavior is a decades ago—in current requirements about how much function, but on these inner agents as its subject matter familiarity natural–science graduates have with the basic (for the history and details of this separation, see Fraley & elements of each of the other natural sciences outside Ledoux, 1992/2015). Behaviorology then is not a part, nor the graduate’s own major. Indeed, the reduction in any kind, of psychology. Instead behaviorology focuses familiarity with the broad areas of their own basic natural on the independent variables of behavior and provides science, occurring from the current, heavy graduate– the principles, methods, and concepts that support the school emphasis on narrow specialization, also raises contingency–engineering practices of professionals in aba alarms, especially for those familiar with the phenomena and its wide range of areas (e.g., parenting, regular and of recombination of repertoires (Epstein, 1996), because special education, behavioral medicine, green contingency repertoire parts that problem solving needs, and that engineering, dignified dying, companion animal should get conditioned as part of professional education training, behavioral safety, business and organizational programs, get left out of the programs. management, penal rehabilitation, and autism and That may even happen to Applied Behavior Analysis developmental disabilities interventions, among others). graduates when their educational programs leave out Sadly, however, the natural science of behavior a thorough grounding in the full extent of the basic has not become well known to other current natural natural science of behavior (i.e., a grounding, such scientists. Nevertheless, for decades—ever since Rachel as in Fraley, 2008, or Ledoux, 2014, that includes the Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, and the 1972 mit book, extensions, interpretations, and implications of their Limits to Growth (Meadows el al, 1972; see Hayes, 2012, basic science, as well as its principles, method, concepts, for an update)—other natural scientists have recognized and applications); programs may instead only include that global problems are caused as much by human a survey of commonly applied principles and concepts, behavior as by other physical, chemical, or biological because only that part of basic science coverage is variables, and the solutions involve changes in human required for certification to practice. behavior as much as changes in other natural variables. A similar conundrum confronts some related natural Readers of this periodical have made or reported this scientists and engineers concerned with behavior in the observation themselves. As a result various authors in separation of their own basic natural–science degree other natural sciences have issued calls, some of book programs from their contingency–engineering degree length (e.g., see McIntyre, 2006) for developing a programs. Few students can study The Experimental natural science of human behavior. They have, however, Analysis of Behavior thoroughly (under any name) due remained relatively unaware that such a discipline has to the current relative scarcity of programs, while many existed for over a hundred years (see Ledoux, 2012). program opportunities exist for students thoroughly to This circumstance prevents much of the cooperation study Applied Behavior Analysis or, perhaps currently that could otherwise occur between traditional natural more likely, just some one narrowly focused area of it. scientists (e.g., physicists, chemists, biologists) and While clearly deserving of more attention, the natural scientists of behavior (e.g., behaviorologists) even eﬀects of such contingencies on the ongoing, and though such cooperation is needed to solve behavior– future, success of the natural science of behavior, and component–laden global problems. Such circumstances its contingency–engineering arms, remain unclear, and hurt everyone (see Ledoux, 2018b, and the last chapter of barely addressed here. Instead, the focus here remains an Ledoux, 2017, for some further information addressing attempt to manage the philosophy of science concern these circumstances). by elaborating Ten Commandments of Natural Science. Discussions regarding aspects of philosophy of natural The commandments provided here summarize some of science in general (i.e., naturalism), and the extensions the necessary components of the philosophy of natural of philosophy of natural science behind behaviorology science that participate, in quality–controlling ways, in and aba in particular (i.e., radical behaviorism) provide the current contingencies involving the behaviors that some appropriate background. See, for example, Fraley, constitute successful natural science. 2008, Chapters 1–7; Ledoux, 2014, Chapters 1–4, 7, and Actually, natural science rests on many more than 23–24; Ledoux, 2015, Papers 2 and especially 3 (i.e., Fraley ten commandments, and ongoing changes in related & Ledoux, 1992/2015); Ledoux, 2017, Chapters 1–6, and contingencies will certainly vary the relative importance 26–27; Ledoux, 2018a, Papers 3, 8, and 9; Morrow, 2017; of each of these and other commandments. Thus, the Page 6 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 commandments presented here are not written in Commandment VII. Thou shalt follow all data wherever stone—although most have been extent for centuries— they lead, although some contingencies make some data and other contingencies on other authors would produce mislead, with more data often being corrective (i.e., the other commandments. The “ten commandments” ongoing self correction of natural science). format serves an evocative stimulus function for ongoing intellectual, academic and scientific activities. So, as part Commandment VIII. Thou shalt, whenever and of prompting increased coverage, understanding, and wherever possible, engage experimental methods, appreciation of the philosophy of natural science and and freely share experimental results, conclusions, its contributions, here are ten of the commandments interpretations, implications, and applications for the of natural science (with commentary on some of the benefit of humanity and its web of existence and survival. commandments appearing after all ten). Commandment IX. Thou shalt work only with natural—real, measurable—events as independent Ten Commandments of Natural Science variables and dependent variables, while respecting the natural functional history of all functional relations Commandment I. Thou shalt respect perspectives, even across time in all phenomena in all disciplines (e.g., ones based on assumptions other than those upon which natural sciences, liberal arts) and their related, applied natural science rests. [See the commentary.] engineering fields.

Commandment II. Thou shalt point out, based on Commandment X. Thou shalt neither engage research scientific evidence, the dangerous—for people—short– to answer magic/superstition/mysticism–based questions, term or long–term consequences to which activities nor interpret data or research results from perspectives grounded in superstitious or mystical assumptions— informed by magic, superstition, or mysticism either theological or secular—can lead or are leading. (theological or secular), nor ever fake data. [See the commentary.]

Commandment III. Thou shalt research—using Commentary on the principles and methods of natural science in all Commandments I, II, and V natural–science disciplines—the human activities and products that lead to, and support, a sustainable and Some legitimate natural–science phenomena (e.g., civilized future for humanity, and disseminate the “dark matter”) might appear to stand outside these resulting information. commandments, due to what at first looks like an “invented” status of such phenomena. The invention, Commandment IV. Thou shalt recognize that natural however, was not of the phenomena, but of the labels scientists and engineers are, like all humans, behaving naming the phenomena, which legitimately facilitates organisms, and that all their behavior, related to science talking about them. As long as researchers do not or not, is behavior under the contingency control of the prematurely, and unparsimoniously, extend causal same kinds of real, measurable variables that control all status to these labels, and instead continue probing the behavior of all organisms (with recognized adjustments phenomena for full accounts, then such phenomena for genetic differences such as “birds fly but pigs don’t”). do not stand outside these commandments. The interrelations among several of the Commandments Commandment V. Thou shalt take into account (e.g., VI, VII, and IX) cover this kind of concern. the many ways in which the Law of Cumulative A role for coercion. Some of the points made herein Complexity [See the commentary.] applies in scientific might possibly elicit negative emotional responses and and liberal arts disciplines and engineering fields, even evoke unnecessary and unhelpful but overt verbal with these ways providing a scientifically sound and or physical attacks, due to some readers’ contingency humanely meaningful, and parsimonious, alternative history. After all, recall that scientists are, like everyone to superstitious and mystical (secular or theological) else, behaving organisms (i.e., Commandment IV) and descriptions and explanations of events. some stimuli produce such behaviors. Occasionally, cussing at each other, or fist fights, occur even at scientific Commandment VI. Thou shalt work with the simplest conventions. In reply to such attacks, also recall that yet adequate (i.e., parsimonious) accounts for any talking with others rather than fighting with them should phenomena before ever invoking more complex—and have been conditioned at least by elementary school. thus more diYcult to test—accounts. Problems with parts of this paper probably exist, and can Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 7 be improved. When noted by others, such parts can be or social in context and others even more physical. addressed. But coercive tactics like cussing and fighting These contingencies include, for example, the varieties have no place either in the noting or in the addressing. of traditional cultural conditioning that, for thousands Coercion breeds countercoercion, which is a long of years, have induced part of the extensive behavior recognized principle in the natural science of behavior. repertoire that accumulates during virtually every human An example of a place for coercion in science involves body’s childhood. This repertoire forms the generally the coercion of probable disasters from global problems unquestioned basis upon which later contingencies evoking coordinated, scientific and culture–wide solution expand the behavior repertoire on into adulthood and responses. Many principles like this will be broadly throughout adulthood. This excessive influence, which is appreciated, not as cultural guesses, but as scientific diYcult to escape, is a pervasive influence that regularly realities, when the whole natural science of behavior and systematically undermines and compromises both becomes generally available to the culture through its emotional and intellectual behavior, including both addition at least to the high school curriculum along with consciousness and other thinking behavior. This traditional physics, chemistry, and biology (and to elementary and cultural conditioning, with its full range of pre–scientific, university curricula as well). superstitious and mystical notions that still are real Commentaries. All of the ten commandments herein, behavior controls, regularly misleads people into dangerous which contingencies first generated in this form in July activities so subtly that many never notice (see Ledoux, 2018, reflect components of the philosophy of natural 2014). One simple example involves trying to get people science, some as part of naturalism and others as part of to stop polluting by merely believing that just telling radical behaviorism. While some repeat fairly standard them not to—that is, telling their supposed inner self or philosophy of natural science components, others consist whatever not to pollute—will be enough. Another example of components made particularly valuable in relation to involves constantly, glibly, unquestioningly, invoking pre– the current problems confronting humanity. While some scientific labels that support and encourage misdirection, remain fairly obvious, others—Commandments I, II, such as “mind,” “soul,” or “self” as if these were real causal and V—can seem ambiguous and so benefit from some events, rather than recognizing their status as pre–scientific unpacking through additional commentary. labels for supposed spontaneously acting superstitious or mystical inner causal agents. Other sources discuss these About Commandment I concerns fully (e.g., Ledoux, 2014, 2017). Usually only Thou shalt respect perspectives, even ones based on education in natural science succeeds in displacing— assumptions other than those upon which natural science or at least competing with—these superstitious or rests. Perhaps this should say “… respect perspectives mystical foundations. Such success supports focusing on contingently and mutually…,” not in the sense of educational changes, through widespread, basic knowledge agreeing with or admiring all perspectives, but in the sense of the natural science of behavior as well as the Ten of treating other perspectives civilly the way adherents of Commandments of Natural Science. other perspectives should also treat our natural science In addition, assumptions cannot really be proved perspective. Perspectives form not from spontaneous or disproved. Assumptions are just taken–for–granted activities of supposed mystical, inner causal agents (e.g., starting points. Some assumptions can have discoverable so–called minds, psyches, selves, souls, personalities, and supports, but supports are not proof. Other perspectives so on) but from contingencies involving conditioned can neither disprove the assumptions of natural science verbal behaviors grounded in earlier verbal behaviors nor prove their own assumptions. Of course any religious called assumptions. These assumptions have their own perspective, being based on faith, actually has no need natural history. either to prove its own assumptions or disprove others’ The current iteration of the natural–science assumptions. Curiously, should anyone ask, natural perspective began about 400 years ago. The incremental science provides the contingency answers to why, down buildup of consistent and interrelated experimental through history, religions have, sometimes violently, results, plus the regular successes of the engineering insisted on trying to prove their own assumptions and applications of these experimental results, gradually disprove not only the assumptions of others but also, induced the assumptions that form the basis, the more recently, the assumptions of natural science. On philosophy, of natural science, and continue to support the other hand, yet similarly, natural science can neither that induction. Several of these assumptions, all remaining disprove the assumptions of other perspectives nor related to reality, appear in these Ten Commandments. prove its own assumptions. These realities generate the Meanwhile the assumptions of non–scientific, or pre– appropriateness of basic mutual, civil respect. However, scientific, perspectives often remain at odds with reality, assumptions, like perspectives in general, appear as and occur due to a range of contingencies, some historical behavioral products of contingencies. And many, perhaps Page 8 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 most, contingencies that produce perspectives and Contingencies inducing scientific assumptions, and assumptions remain available for scientific examination, related scientific behaviors, inevitably compete, however, analysis, interpretation, and disseminated description with other often conflicting contingencies operating at (hence the Second Commandment…). the same time. Thus opportunities for contradictions Actually, the point that “assumptions cannot really abound. For example, some contingencies on the behavior be proved or disproved” remains debatable, with readers of some people compel “fight against natural science” lining up on one side or the other as a function of their responses, while other contingencies on the behavior of contingency history. This situation prevails due to the those same people compel determined resistance responses contingency nature of the behavior of “knowing” (e.g., to giving up the products of natural science. see Ledoux, 2014, Chapter 21; or see Ledoux, 2017, The mechanisms to address fight–against–science Chapter 23). This situation also prevails due to the nature responses might fruitfully begin with more thorough of reality, which involves the firings of sensory neurons natural–science education, especially in the natural science being the sole source of input for any behavior, whether of behavior, which deserves recognition as a needed part or not those sensory neuron firings are enhanced by of “stem” discussions. This raises the issue, however, that various technologies. Behaviorological analysis, based not enough programs exist, across the world’s colleges and on summarizing the natural laws governing behavior, universities, to educate all the professors of the basic natural leads to the same conclusion about reality that Stephen science of behavior that a society needs not only to educate Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow reached, through the all the students of society (because arguably this is one logic of naturalism in physics, in their book The Grand natural science that everyone needs, if only to help counter Design (2010). That conclusion about reality is this: Our the insidious eVects of traditional cultural conditioning) but neurally behaving reality is the sole source of knowing about also to research and apply this natural science’s contributions reality, because we can get no closer to reality than the neural to solving the behavior components of global problems behaviors that the firings of sensory neurons evoke. Under before the eVects of these problems become unmanageable contingency control, humans behave the reality that they (like global warming; see Ledoux, 2014, or 2017, which also experience, which is a topic discussed elsewhere (e.g., see cover some contributions that the natural science of behavior Ledoux, 2014, Chapter 23; or see Ledoux, 2017, Chapter makes to other natural sciences). Thus a major focus of 26) but otherwise remains beyond the scope of discussing practitioners of the natural science of behavior needs to put Ten Commandments of Natural Science. far more stress than is currently evident on developing such The contingency origin of perspectives such as programs. (For resources that assist program development, religion, and natural science itself, and their assumptions, see Ledoux, 2018b.) opens all these to consideration by, and explanations A kind of parallel danger for natural science, at least from, natural science. For example some secular mystical as a currently minority perspective on this planet, involves assumptions got conditioned due to relatively recent reciprocal disrespect—and attendant damage from anti– contingencies inducing the removal of theological verbal natural–science activities—from those involved with behavior from long–standing theologically informed any majority perspective, like religion, that some folks philosophies; this removal introduced the secular inner– in natural science might publicly disrespect. So, “Thou agent causes in psychology. Again, and in contrast, the shalt respect perspectives, even ones based on assumptions assumptions behind natural science (such as “work only other than those upon which natural science rests,” lest ye be with real, measurable events as independent and dependent similarly disrespected, and possibly attacked or, perhaps variables”) get conditioned from the contingency effects worse, unfunded. occurring as a result of developments over several hundred years of accumulating experimental evidence and effective About Commandment II engineering practices and products with the wide range Thou shalt point out, based on scientific evidence, the of phenomena that the various natural–science and dangerous—for people—short–term or long–term consequences engineering disciplines cover. As an example, carefully to which activities grounded in superstitious or mystical inspecting one’s immediate surroundings will show how assumptions—either theological or secular—can lead or are so much of what one sees came about as a product of leading. With the potential for scientific consideration and scientific and engineering behavior. The increasing explanation, and some actual scientific consideration and amount of such experience that accrues across generations explanation in hand in various cases (e.g., see the chapters on becomes part of the contingencies that induce operating some scientific answers for some ancient human questions in under the “work only with real, measurable events as Fraley, 2008, or Ledoux, 2014, or 2017), natural scientists can independent and dependent variables” assumption (hence better appreciate the appropriateness of respecting—while the Ninth Commandment…; all these commandments not supporting—the perspectives of others. (Some topics are indeed interrelated). of those answered ancient human questions include values, Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 9 rights, ethics, morals, language, consciousness, personhood, About Commandment V life, death, and reality.) Thou shalt take into account the many ways in which the Both natural science and non–science perspectives Law of Cumulative Complexity applies in many scientific involve behavior occurring under natural contingencies. and liberal arts disciplines and engineering fields, with These contingencies operate even if the scientific these ways providing a scientifically sound and humanely consideration and explanation, in particular cases, meaningful, and parsimonious, alternative to superstitious suggest inherent dangers for humanity that require and mystical (secular or theological) descriptions and appropriate address. As an example of such dangers, the explanations of events. The Law of Cumulative Complexity pervasive control by the theological mystical perspective (Ledoux, 2012, 2014, 2017) states: “The natural physical/ (i.e., religious authorities) in Europe around 400 chemical interactions of matter and energy sometimes result years ago, around the time of Galileo’s trail, forced a in more complex structures and functions that endure and compromise on the proto–scientists of the time—then naturally interact further, resulting in an accumulating called natural philosophers—that prevented for over 300 complexity.” Note that this law says “sometimes result,” years the careful kind of inclusion, that other phenomena not “always result.” Some enduring interactions can enjoyed, of human nature and human behavior in reduce complexity. After taking the time to unpack the scientific investigations. Then, just as a natural–science elements of this law (i.e., ponder the implications of treatment of human nature and human behavior began … physical / chemical interactions … sometimes … more in the early twentieth century, excessive controls in the complex structures … functions … endure … interact academic sphere by the secular mystical perspective (e.g., further, … accumulating complexity) one finds that this psychology and most other social sciences; see Ledoux, law helps us make sense of numerous past, growing, 2002) also interfered with the widespread dissemination and current complexities, starting with the origin of and broad application of the natural science of behavior this universe in which we live. In reviewing the results (i.e., into all of the identifiable application areas beyond of all the experimental work on the natural events of, the current emphasis on developmental disabilities and and after, the “big bang,” one traces the complexities that autism interventions). Both of these restraints have naturally accumulate from the “big bang” events and on reduced the availability of the natural science of behavior through the natural development of stars and galaxies for application to the behavior–related components and so many more elements, and so on. Then in later of global problems and solutions, which helps explain generations of stars, after the end of many massive stars the repeated calls for this natural science. To the extent has provided additional amounts of so many elements, that the solutions to global problems require such accumulating complexities usually and naturally behaviorological input, these restraints endanger human produced and produce planets. All of this happens with survival. Humanity can no longer aVord these restraints, no need for contributions from magical or mysterious or if we ever could. Hence the commandment to point out, spontaneous events. based on scientific evidence, the dangerous—for people— Reviews of what we know—what research has shown short–term or long–term consequences to which activities us—about the origins of life, show similar outcomes. We grounded in superstitious or mystical assumptions—either should not be surprised that on some—perhaps many theological or secular—can lead or are leading. or even most—planets, further developments naturally Natural scientists—and behaviorologists in produce an ever expanding and increasingly complex particular—can promote, support, and engage the range of minerals and compounds, both organic and necessary activities to help solve individual, local, and inorganic, in a kind of compound or mineral evolution global problems. The needed eVorts of natural behavior that likely diVers on each planet both due to the varying science practitioners must occur, for example, in conditions present on, and developing on, each planet, discovering and sharing information on contingencies and due to the varying conditions of each planet’s location that induce the denial of climate–science results and with respect to its local star (see Hazen, 2005, 2012). And conclusions, as voiced in some perspectives, as well as on at least one planet that we know of so far (i.e., ours) in discovering and sharing information on contingency such naturally produced developments accumulated changes that induce reduction of such denial behavior. further mineral and compound complexities that we Will current contingencies on behaviorologists and now call or, more accurately, tact (see Skinner, 1957; other natural scientists induce eVective action in a Peterson & Ledoux, 2014) as life. Indeed, any origin of timely manner? Will that action also include establishing life anywhere—on this planet or others, outside or even and institutionalizing the educational programs in inside a laboratory—can be broadly understood in terms behaviorology that can provide the bulk of the needed of the Law of Cumulative Complexity, and again without societal eVects in terms of appropriately knowledgeable requiring contributions from magical or mysterious or and skilled personnel? spontaneous events. Page 10 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

As complexity accumulates, continuing Law of Cumulative Complexity applies in many scientific developmental interactions of living matter and energy and liberal arts disciplines and engineering fields, with produced and produces the natural (but not necessarily these ways providing a scientifically sound and humanely repeatable) evolution of life’s physiology and forms, and meaningful, and parsimonious, alternative to superstitious behavior–related processes and functions. The broad and mystical (secular or theological) descriptions and availability of the natural science of biology has enabled explanations of events. the general population to gain some relatively widespread understanding and appreciation of the evolution of life’s physiology and forms. However, at only about 100 Summary years old (see Ledoux, 2012) the relative youth of the natural science of behaviorology has contributed to the In summary, all of those commandments reflect general population having relatively little exposure to, components of the philosophy of natural science, and thus little understanding and appreciation of, life’s which is the verbal behavior arising from the long–term behavior–related processes and functions. Yet all these life repeated successes of natural science. These successes functions and processes occur through the developments depend on adherence to the rules stated or implied in of natural interactions of energy traces with various the contingencies that compel these verbal–behavior sensory and motor forms of neural physiology, and these commandments. They prompt adherence, because interactions, in all their complexity, produce behavior, they improve the quality of natural–science practice. in all its complexity. On this planet examples of this By exerting such quality–control, these commandment Law of Cumulative Complexity include not only the vast rules lead successfully to more beneficial natural–science range of dna–based life forms available for study (and discoveries, developments, products, and services. on some other planets, perhaps the complexities of life Some of these quality–controlling commandments originate and accumulate on some other chemical basis) occur as part of naturalism and others as part of radical but also the intricacies of global problems and solutions, behaviorism. Some consist of fairly standard components the joys and sorrows of life in the interconnected web of of the philosophy of natural science while others consist existence of which we are a part, and the interrelations of components made particularly valuable due to and interactions of energy exchanges, between internal the current problems—the current contingencies— and external environmental events and the body, as confronting humanity. When these commandments described by physiology and behaviorology, that produce appropriately aVect human behavior, then the value of all behavior, including all human behavior, all without natural science to humanity—traditional natural sciences needing contributions from magical or mysterious or as well as behaviorology—can noticeably increase. This spontaneous events. This knowledge helps people deal helps solve global problems, thus reducing the risks from eVectively not only with behavior but also with the place the disasters that otherwise currently threaten to overtake of humans in the universe, and with the place of the humanity. Education, especially today in behaviorology, basic natural science of behavior, behaviorology, among enhances understanding of these commandments and the rest of the natural sciences. All of these phenomena are adherence to them. Studying this basic natural science, cumulatively complex; all are entirely natural. and then its contingency–engineering practices (e.g., aba) No one can yet say for sure what else will naturally improves eVectiveness in contributing to making a better develop in the future. This Law of Cumulative future. Make the most of it! Complexity, however, fundamentally describes—but not with details or formulas—all these developments. While many details still await scientific elaboration, this law Endnotes operates always and only as a sequence of purely natural– event interactions spreading out repeatedly as multiple, On 2018 July 13, contingencies first compelled the writing additional, purely natural, usually increasingly complex, down of the Ten Commandments listed herein. Also, ever outcomes. With enough time the operation of this law since formulating the “law” of cumulative complexity builds the accumulation of the complexities visible with (in 2010–2011, across a dozen earlier versions that got many diverse phenomena, in many areas, disciplines, ever more succinct until the contingencies controlling and applied fields, again with no contribution from this verbal behavior could not wring anything better magical or mysterious or spontaneous events. Reviewing out of it, leaving the present version to persist ever since the extent and diverse variety of such applicable then) the question of calling it a “law” has remained. phenomena both induces the “law” status of cumulative But continuous incursions into this question—alone complexity, and adds to our confidence about it. So, and with other natural scientists, including other we should take into account the many ways in which the behaviorologists—have raised confidence about, and Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 11 continued to compel, the “law” descriptor. Again, every Ledoux, S. F. (12). Behaviorism at 100 unabridged. scientific review of any phenomena, including those Behaviorology Today, 15 (1), 3–22. (A shorter version, that have been traditionally explained through magical simply titled “Behaviorism at 100,” appeared in 12 or mysterious or spontaneous events, has turned up in American Scientist, 100 [1], 60–65.) natural explanations that also followed the pattern Ledoux, S. F. (14). Running Out of Time— of accumulating complexity. All this further induces Introducing Behaviorology to Help Solve Global scientific confidence in the appropriateness of tacting Problems. Ottawa, Canada: BehaveTech Publishing cumulative complexity, as here described, as a “law.”2 (a 600–page textbook). Ledoux, S. F. (2015). Origins and Components of Behaviorology—Third Edition. Ottawa, Canada: References BehaveTech Publishing. Ledoux, S. F. (17). What Causes Human Behavior— Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, ma: Stars, Selves, or Contingencies? Ottawa, Canada: Houghton Miﬄin. BehaveTech Publishing (a 400–page, general– Epstein, R. (996). Cognition, Creativity, and Behavior. audience book). Westport, ct: Praeger. Ledoux, S. F. (18a). Science Works on Human Behavior. Fraley, L. E. (2008). General Behaviorology: The Natural Ottawa, Canada: BehaveTech Publishing. Science of Human Behavior. Canton, ny: ABCs (a Ledoux, S. F. (18b). More assistance in developing 1,600–page, doctoral–level textbook). behaviorology courses and programs. Journal of Fraley, L. E. & Ledoux, S. F. (1992/2015). Origins, status, Behaviorology, 21 (2), 19–28. and mission of behaviorology. A seven–chapter McIntyre, L. (2006). Dark Ages—The Case for a Science of paper first published in 1992 but now available in Behavior. Cambridge, ma: mit Press. S. F. Ledoux. (2015). Origins and Components of Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behaviorology—Third Edition (pp. 33–169). Ottawa, Behrens III, W. W. (2). The Limits to Growth—A Canada: BehaveTech Publishing. Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament Hawking, S. & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. of Mankind. New York: Universe Books. New York: Bantam (especially see Chapter 3). Skinner, B. F. (953). Science and Human Behavior. Hayes, B. (1). Computation and the human New York: Macmillan. (The Free Press, New York, predicament. American Scientist, 100 (3), 186–191. This published a paperback edition in 965.) article considers the impact of later developments in Skinner, B. F. (). The Experimental Analysis of computer modeling on the conclusions in The Limits Behavior. American Scientist, 45 (4), 343–371. to Growth (see Meadows et al, 197). Skinner, B. F. (). About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf. Hazen, R. M. (2005). Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Skinner, B. F. (2012). The Experimental Analysis of Life’s Origin. Washington, D. C.: Joseph Henry Press. Behavior. American Scientist, 100 (1), 54–59 (editor– Hazen, R. M. (2012). The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 selected excerpts from Skinner, 1957, as part of Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet. New the American Scientist Centennial Classic that the York: Viking. short version of Ledoux’s 2012 “Behaviorism at Ledoux, S. F. (). Defining natural sciences. 100” followed). Behaviorology Today,  (), – (also in www.behaviorology.org (the books page, and the Ledoux, 2018a). journal page, of this website contain access or descriptions of many of these and other references).

THE ADDENDUM COMPLETES THIS ARTICLE: Page 12 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

Addendum: A single page (without commentary*) with the Ten Commandments of Natural Science (by Stephen F. Ledoux, 2018 July 13)

I. Thou shalt respect perspectives, even ones based on assumptions other than those upon which natural science rests. [See commentary.*]

II. Thou shalt point out, based on scientific evidence, the dangerous—for people—short–term or long–term consequences to which activities grounded in superstitious or mystical assumptions—either theological or secular—can lead or are leading. [See commentary.*]

III. Thou shalt research—using the principles and methods of natural science in all natural–science disciplines—the human activities and products that lead to, and support, a sustainable and civilized future for humanity, and disseminate the resulting information.

IV. Thou shalt recognize that natural scientists and engineers are, like all humans, behaving organisms, and that all their behavior, related to science or not, is behavior under the contingency control of the same kinds of real, measurable variables that control all behavior of all organisms (with recognized adjustments for genetic diﬀerences such as “birds fly but pigs don’t”).

V. Thou shalt take into account the many ways in which the Law of Cumulative Complexity [See commentary.*] applies in scientific and liberal arts disciplines and engineering fields, with these ways providing a scientifically sound and humanely meaningful, and parsimonious, alternative to superstitious and mystical (secular or theological) descriptions and explanations of events.

VI. Thou shalt work with the simplest yet adequate (i.e., parsimonious) accounts for any phenomena before ever invoking more complex—and thus more diYcult to test—accounts.

VII. Thou shalt follow all data wherever they lead, although some contingencies make some data mislead, with more data often being corrective (i.e., the ongoing self correction of natural science).

VIII. Thou shalt, whenever and wherever possible, engage experimental methods, and freely share experimental results, conclusions, interpretations, implications, and applications for the benefit of humanity and its web of existence and survival.

IX. Thou shalt work only with natural—real, measurable—events as independent variables and dependent variables, while respecting the natural functional history of all functional relations across time in all phenomena in all disciplines (e.g., natural sciences, liberal arts) and their related, applied engineering fields.

X. Thou shalt neither engage research to answer magic/superstition/mysticism– based questions, nor interpret data or research results from perspectives informed by magic, superstition, or mysticism (theological or secular), nor ever fake data.1 —————————— *The commentary appears in the “Ten Commandments of Natural Science” article in the Journal of Behaviorology (see the specific articles page at www.behaviorology.org). Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 13 A Rose by Another Name: Behavioral Materialism Joseph E. Morrow* California State University—Sacramento Radical Behaviorism is the name Skinner has given the philosophy he had developed. The purpose of the present note is to suggest that Behavioral Materialism be considered as a possible alternative. It is clear that any name should have a reference to Another philosopher, Flanagan, in the same behavior since this is the subject matter about which journal wrote: “Skinner is a metaphysical materialist.” we philosophize. However, there are some important Metaphysical in this philosophical sense means only a distinctions the word behaviorism alone does not clarify. position that, from a logical standpoint, can never be There are the behaviorisms of Watson, Hull, and others totally proven. Dr. John C. (Jay) Moore, a scholar in that are different in important philosophical ways from the philosophy of radical behaviorism and conceptual that of Skinner. issues in behavior analysis, called Skinner’s position Adding the word radical to behaviorism may not “physicalism” or “something akin to metaphysical adequately denote the factors that distinguish Skinner’s materialism if it should be called a metaphysical position philosophy. Skinner uses the term radical in its primary at all.” lexical sense of root or origin. But, a more likely effect Skinner remains clear on the issue. In Notebooks, he of the word on its audience is to suggest the secondary states, “A basic principle of behaviorism which has guided lexical meaning of extremism. If one starts with the usual me throughout my professional life… is the importance common misunderstandings of the word “behaviorism” of converting mentalistic terms into alternatives which and adds “extremism” to that, we may have the basis of a refer to things having physical dimensions.” complete misunderstanding. The history of materialism is a long one going Adding the word materialism to behavior would have back at least to the fifth century b.c. to Leucippus advantages. For one thing, it may be the most accurate and Democritus. Materialists have consistently argued depiction of Skinner’s philosophy. According to Random against the notion that something other than matter House Dictionary, materialism holds that “matter and its exists. Today, materialist views have generally eliminated motions [constitute] the Universe, and all phenomena, supernatural views in chemistry, physics, and biology. including those of mind [are] due to material agencies.” It is in the mind that non–materialists have dug in As to mind, as early as 1945, Skinner viewed such to insist that something other than matter exists. The questions to be issues involving private, real events taking radical behaviorist critique of mind clearly places it place inside the skin of the individual. He later argued within the materialist tradition and offers the hope of that “a private event may be distinguished by its limited finally sealing the non–materialist coYn by leaving it accessibility but not, so far as we know, by any special no place else to go. structure or nature,” and, “Private and public events have Another advantage to the term Behavioral the same kinds of physical dimension.” Materialism is that it could allow the intellectual This position distanced Skinner from the most community to more accurately place radical behaviorism prevalent philosophy in psychology at the time, the non– on the spectrum of thought. materialist logical positivism. Taking note of his position, The similarity between the term behavioral Creel, a philosopher writing in the journal Behaviorism in materialism and Marvin Harris’ cultural materialism is the 1980s concluded, “… I see no reason to doubt that intentional [Marvin Harris, 1927–2001, an American Skinner aYrms philosophical materialism.” anthropologist]. The breadth of similarities have been

______*This article begins the Special Section on Behavioral Materialism (as described in the Editorial on page 2 of this issue). It was reproduced, with the author’s permission, from Operants, Issue III, 2017, 24–25 (published by the B. F. Skinner Foundation at www.bfskinner.org). Address correspondence regarding this article to [email protected]

Key words: behavioral materialism, behaviorology, dialectical materialism, Marxism, philosophy of science, radical behaviorism Page 14 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 adequately delineated previously and need not be repeated marked by opposites… [The] interaction here. SuYce it to say that cultural materialism, like radical [of opposites] includes both their unity behaviorism represents an attempt to explain all human and their struggle. The unity of opposites conduct based on real events in a material world. means they cannot exist without each other Generally speaking, the most well–known proponents and are mutually dependent… While being of materialism today are Marxists. Radical behaviorism in unity the opposites are at the same time and Marxism have similarities and diVerences. Marx was in ‘struggle’ with each other, that is, they a consistent determinist and his writings anticipated a mutually negate and rule each other out… part of Skinner’s critique of mentalism. Marx wrote: [Thus] contradictions are the source of the The phantoms formed in the human motion and development of objects and brain are also necessarily sublimates phenomena… The struggle of opposites of their material life process which constitutes the inner content, the source of is empirically verifiable and bound the development of reality. to material premises… Life is not Because of its dependence on the logical methods of determined by consciousness but analysis adopted from the philosopher Hegel, Harris calls consciousness by life. this approach the Hegelian monkey on Marx’s back. He Marx, like many after him, did not complete this critique argued that while certain natural phenomena may well of what he called idealism and radical behaviorists call fit the notion of unity and struggle of opposites, a great mentalism. Such was left to Skinner. many do not. However, the philosophical debt owed Marx for his Such verbal behavior seems totally superfluous insistence that consciousness and all human behavior is in describing the functional relationships radical due to events in the real world led Harris to suggest that behaviorists observe in operant chambers. For example, Marx “had come the closest in the nineteenth century to in switching from a crf to a vr schedule, a particular being the Darwin of the social sciences.’’ change in performance is noted. In switching from a crf Indeed Harris in choosing the name materialism to a vi, a diVerent kind of performance ensues, and so did so “as an acknowledgment of the debt owed to on throughout the many schedules. The behavior change Marx.” Marx’s brand of materialism is called dialectical is accounted for by the reinforcement requirements of materialism and herein lies an important distinction from the extant schedule (and past history). To then suggest Radical Behaviorism. Vasily Krapivin writing for the that this process be fitted into a verbal scheme requiring authoritative Progress Publishers in Moscow on “What is identifying opposites and contradictions borders on the Dialectical Materialism” lists the main components as: absurd. Additionally, of what value would such a task be? 1. An objective approach to social processes Behaviorists are well aware that behavior changes as a 2. A comprehensive analysis function of changing conditions. Radical behaviorists call 3. A historical approach these changing conditions contingencies of reinforcement 4. A study of practical demands and their basic controlling aspects have been identified 5. Pinpointing the crucial link for change relatively free of excess verbal baggage. 6. Determining the inner sources of development Again, it is quite possible the variables Marx studied by exposing the contradictions which caused it. were appropriately described by dialetics. But behaviorists, Radical behaviorists would recognize their own out of an appreciation for Marxist materialism, need practices in elaborations of the first five points. However, not cram our observations into inappropriate verbal it is the sixth point that led Harris to reject the term descriptions of those observations. dialectical and I would urge its rejection for our field on In concluding, I would suggest that the name similar grounds. behavioral materialism would clearly state the similarity In elaborating on point six, Krapivin says, with Cultural Materialism well noted previously. All phenomena and processes of reality have Rejecting dialectical and using materialism would show opposite aspects. Everything is shot through the diVerences from, and similarities with Marxist with contradiction… The existence and philosophy. Such a name, I suggest, would more development of living organisms are also accurately identify Radical Behaviorism on the spectrum of current philosophical systems.1 Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 15 Behaviorology and Dialectical Materialism: On the Way to Dialogue Alexandr A. Fedorov* Novosibirsk State University—Russia Every science needs philosophy. Perhaps, it is true that in the laboratory we are neither idealists nor empiricists nor dialectical materialists, but experimentalists, but as Skinner wrote, “a theory is never overthrown by facts, but only by another theory.” A theory underlies facts, and philosophy underlies a theory. Therefore, philosophy is inescapable, and behaviorology is forced to seek after its philosophy as any other science. Following Ernest A. Vargas, we define behaviorology as science that addresses the contingent relations between actions and other events. He also makes a very significant remark that “Its Skinnerian contingency–based framework of interpretation, with its firm exclusion of agency, distinguishes behaviorology from other sciences of behavior.”

There are many interpretations of Skinner’s works, things are interdependent rather than a mixture of things and behavioral materialism is the most authentic one. My isolated from each other, and (2) that the material world main thesis is that dialectical materialism is compatible is in a state of constant motion. “Materialism” holds that with behaviorology, but there are some problems here. the only thing that exists is matter. Dialectical materialism (A) Firstly, dialectical materialists are combines the elements of naturalism of Marx, Hegelian often inclined to interpret Skinner’s philosophy and French positivism. theory as mechanistic materialism. They What does dialectical materialism mean in the are obviously wrong in this case. behavioral sciences? It is fallacious to believe that it is the (B) Secondly, there are a lot of forms of direct application of the theory of dialectical materialism dialectical materialism, and some of them to the problems of behavior. As Lev Vygotsky [1896– are even incompatible with materialism 1934] wrote, “we are in need of an as yet undeveloped itself. Many dialectic materialists but inevitable theory of biological materialism and incautiously use traditional psychological psychological materialism as an intermediate science terms (mind, consciousness, motive and which explains the concrete application of the abstract so on), and this leads to a mess. Some theses of dialectical materialism to the given field of consider dialectical materialism as a form phenomena.” Vygotsky fell into a net of traditional of contextualism. We also know that terms, but his main idea is clear. Dialectical materialism contextualistic interpretations of radical in behavioral sciences is behavioral materialism. By some behaviorism exist too. Nevertheless, amazing fluke, behaviorologists gave the same name it was Watson who fairly stated, to the scientific philosophy underlying behaviorology. “behaviorism is new wine that cannot be In his writings Jerome Ulman suggests the following poured into old bottles.” This is also true terms: scientific materialism (the materialist orientation in respect to dialectical materialism (in among natural scientists), selectionistic materialism (the behavioral sciences especially). It needs a materialist orientation among researchers in the life new vocabulary, and Skinner’s theory can sciences); and behavioral materialism (the materialist provide it. orientation in behaviorology). Joe Morrow also uses this So, what is dialectical materialism? “Dialectical” term in this manner (in this issue). means (1) that the universe as an integral whole in which

______*A commentary on Joseph Morrow’s article on Behavioral Materialism in this issue, this article was reproduced, with the author’s permission, from Operants, Issue III, 2017, 26–29 (published by the B. F. Skinner Foundation at www.bfskinner.org). Address correspondence regarding this article to [email protected]

Key words: behavioral materialism, behaviorology, dialectical materialism, Marxism, philosophy of science, radical behaviorism Page 16 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

For true dialectical materialists, attributes “dialectical used mentalist terminology. We should understand that materialist” or “Marxist” in fact means “scientific.” For dialectical–materialist psychology is not a natural science. example, Vygotsky wrote, “everything that was and is Let’s look at the theory of Bonifaty Kedrov, a notable genuinely scientific belongs to Marxist psychology. This Soviet researcher, philosopher, logician, chemist, and concept is broader than the concept of school or even psychologist who specialized in philosophical questions current. It coincides with the concept scientific per se, no of the natural sciences. Kedrov’s views on the position matter where and by whom it may have been developed.” of psychology among sciences were generally accepted. Behaviorology is the scientific study of behavior (within He followed Engels’ division of the world into three Skinnerian contingency–based framework), so we can domains (nature, society, and thought) and suggested the carefully examine if behaviorology contains dialectical triangular classification of the sciences. elements. If Vygotsky is right, we will find them. A circle unifies sciences in the order of emergence However, let us take a step back. I have already written of forms of matter (nature → society → thought | that dialectical–materialist psychologists are inclined to natural sciences → social sciences → philosophy). We interpret Skinner’s theory as mechanistic materialism, see that psychology falls out from this circle of sciences. but this is not the only accusation of behaviorism. It is neither a natural science nor a social science nor a Boris Teplov, a well–known figure in the Soviet philosophical science, though it has its closest ties with psychology, wrote, “Dialectical–materialist psychology is philosophy. At the same time, behaviorology is no doubt directly opposed to behaviorism. The basic task of Soviet a natural science so it is incompatible with psychology psychology is to discover the materialist explanation of even from the dialectical–materialist point of view. man’s psyche and consciousness.” He also contended But when we compare behaviorology and that behaviorism springs from idealism because it asserts dialectical–materialistic psychology, the key figure that “the psyche and consciousness are only accessible is already mentioned—Lev Vygotsky. I would like to to introspective knowledge and so cannot be studied provide a rather long quote from Spanish psychologist by objective method.” If there is any truth in these Ángel Rivière where the positions of Skinner and statements, it concerns methodological behaviorism. Vygotsky are juxtaposed: Skinner stated, “thought is not a mystical cause or Vygotsky’s solution had something in precursor of action, or an inaccessible ritual, but action common with that of Skinner’s: In order itself, subject to analysis with the concepts and techniques to explain the origin of the higher mental of the natural sciences and ultimately to be accounted for functions, he considered it necessary to !"#$%&'&#!%(')!%*(%'&+"',(-.#$%&#-&-/0(-$,$.&#!%#-&#.( 6$2'7#!"#-)(#-(%!&(!%,8()$.2'%#-&#.0(6+&(',-!(@!-##-&#.9( in terms of controlling variables.” Moreover,)'&$"#',#-)(1&2$()'&$"#',#-&(!"#$%&'&#!%(')!%*("$-$'".2$"-(#%( “no major go outside the subject.D+&("'5#.',(6$2'7#!"#-)(#-(',#*%$5(C#&2()'&$"#',#-)0(%!&( These functions behaviorist has ever argued that science must&2$(,#3$(-.#$%.$-/4('%5(6$2'7#!"',()'&$"#',#-)(1&2$()'&$"#',#-& limit itself are considered to be( theC#&2(@"'*)'&#-)(!"(@!-##-)9(EF#%%$"(C"!&$(2#)-$,30(;&2$( products which !"#$%&'&#!%(#%(6$2'7#!"!,!*8/9 @28-#.',#-)(!3(&2$(,!*#.',(@!-##-&(2'-(%$7$"(6$$%(*!!5( to public events.” Therefore, behaviorology( takes:!"(&"+$(5#',$.&#.',()'&$"#',#-&-0('&&"#6+&$-( the originated in the culture6$2'7#!"#-)9=( and were made view that private events including thinking;5#',$.&#.',<)'&$"#',#-&=(!"(;>'"?#-&=(#%(3'.&()$'%-( are accessible subjective through processes( A2$"$(#-('("$'-!%(C28(E!7#$&(@-8.2!,!*#-&-( of social to the methods on natural sciences. ' )($% %#interaction. '"% Higher mental5$@"$.'&$5(6$2'7#!"#-)(-!()+.29(M%5(&2$("$'-!%(#-(&2'&( functions— # !% ) $ @-8.2!,!*8('%5(6$2'7#!"!,!*8('"$(#%.!))$%-+"'6,$9(A2#-( Another prominent dialectic–[email protected]!,!*89(A2#-(.!%.$@&(#-(6"!'5$"(&2'%(&2$(.!%.$@&( psychologist, language and signs, even#%.!))$%-+"'6#,#&8(-@"#%*-()'#%,8(3"!)(5+',#-)(&2'&( consciousness Rubinstein, pointed out that “behaviorism!3(-.2!!,(!"($7$%(.+""$%&9(B&(.!#%.#5$-(C#&2(&2$(.!%.$@&( follows the itself, with its semiotic@"$5!)#%'&$-(#%(@-8.2!,!*80(&2!+*2(!3&$%(,'&$%&,89(J$-@#&$( structure—are mechanist schema: stimulus–response. Its description ) #%#nothing but %" refined forms&2$(3'.&(&2'&(E!7#$&(@-8.2!,!*#-&-(3!")',,8(5#--!.#'&$5( of interaction. 6$$%(5$7$,!@$59=( &2$)-$,7$-( of external connections between stimulusD$2'7#!"!,!*8( and reaction 3"!)(5+',#-)( is in keeping with the pragmatic, generally positivist ) '%5(#%&$"@"$&$5( methodology.” So dialectical materialists-&+58(!3(6$2'7#!"( assert that @-8.2#.(@"!.$--$-( 1C#&2#%(EF#%%$"#'%( )'&$"#',#-&#.',,8('-( behaviorism is not only mechanistic, but also.!%&#%*$%.8<6'-$5( positivistic. &2$(@"!5+.&(!3(2#*2,8( But radical behaviorism is aligned with materialism,3"')$C!"F/0(-!(C$( not !"*'%#O$5()'&&$"0( .'%(.'"$3+,,8($?')#%$( &2$8(C$"$(-&#,,(5+',#-&-( with pragmatism or positivism. Skinner #3(6$2'7#!"!,!*8(wrote himself, C2!(+-$5()$%&',#-&( “the physicalism of the logical positivist has.!%&'#%-(5#',$.&#.',( never been &$")#%!,!*89(P$( good behaviorism.” $,$)$%&-9(B3(G8*!&-F8( -2!+,5(+%5$"-&'%5( ##) &2'&(5#',$.&#.',< There is a reason why Soviet &2$)9psychologists )'&$"#',#-&(@-8.2!,!*8( deprecated behaviorism so much. And the( reasonH!C$7$"0( is that #-(%!&('(%'&+"',( psychology and behaviorology are incommensurable.,$&(+-(&'F$('(-&$@( -.#$%.$9(Q$&I-(,!!F('&( 6'.F9(B(2'7$( &2$(&2$!"8(!3(D!%#3'&8( This incommensurability springs mainly',"$'58(C"#&&$%(&2'&( from dualism R$5"!70('(%!&'6,$( that predominates in psychology, though5#',$.&#.',<)'&$"#',#-&( often latently. E!7#$&("$-$'".2$"0( Despite the fact that Soviet [email protected]!,!*#-&-('"$( formally @2#,!-!@2$"0( #%.,#%$5(&!(#%&$"@"$&( ,!*#.#'%0(.2$)#-&0( dissociated themselves from dualism andEF#%%$"I-(&2$!"8( interpreted '%5(@-8.2!,!*#-&( psychic processes materialistically as the'-()$.2'%#-&#.( product of C2!(-@$.#',#O$5( )'&$"#',#-)0(6+&(&2#-( #%(@2#,!-!@2#.',( highly organized matter, they were still#-(%!&(&2$(!%,8('..+-'&#!%(!3( dualists who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→(-!.#$&8(→(&2!+*2&(| %'&+"',(-.#$%.$-( &2'&(;&2$(@-8.2$('%5(.!%-.#!+-%$--('"$(!%,8('..$--#6,$( →(-!.#',(-.#$%.$-(→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

!"#$%&'( !" Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 17

A second characteristic which draws while Vygotsky used traditional terms and thereby Vygotsky somewhat close to the his works may be read this way and that. However, position of Skinner is what we might Vygotsky’s works can be regarded as a manual to apply call “instrumentalism”. His [Vygotsky’s] the dialectic method to psychology, and behaviorologists unit of analysis was instrumental can take advantage of it. behaviour. He thought that the Summing up this point, we can compare Skinner’s possibility of transforming the material and Vygotsky’s positions using dialectical laws. First of world by means of tools established all, Rivière correctly points out that both of them “go the conditions for the modification of outside the subject” in order to explain human behavior. reflexive behaviour and its qualitative In fact, it is the application of the law of negation that transformation in consciousness. This is the first law of dialectics. On the one hand, Skinner process is further mediated by a special and Vygotsky negate the inner entity, which is the cause class of tools: those which permit the of itself. On the other hand, both of them negate the realization of transformation of others. former psychology. We call these tools “signs” and they Then, Vygotsky tries to use the law of the negation are essentially provided by culture… of the negation. Strictly speaking he goes inside the [Thus,] the fundamental path of subject turning back to inner causes. As Rivière notes, development is that which is defined by “the systems of self–regulation, when internalized, the internalization of those instruments dialectically modify the structure of external behavior.” and signs, by the conversion of the And exactly at this point Vygotsky commits a blunder. external system of regulation into means He did not take into account that the return to the of self–regulation. It is this notion which former language is impossible. He follows a right creates a decisive separation between the direction but by a wrong bus. It can sound strange instrumentalism of Vygotsky and that enough but a behaviorist has also to go inside the subject of Skinner, because Vygotsky thought if he tries to follow dialectics. And it is the problem of the systems of self–regulation, when privacy that concerns the problem of “going inside.” We internalized, dialectically modify the can construct a logical argument. structure of external behavior, which can 1. Skinner considers the “being” of private no longer be understood as an expression events. In fact, they are bodily conditions of reflexes. In other words, consciousness, and covert behavior. which was for him [Vygotsky] “social 2. Nothing can be in existence out contact with oneself,” exerts a causal of interaction. Mutual connection influence over behaviour. and mutual conditionality of the We can see here that Rivière considers that Vygotsky’s phenomena of a material world is one and Skinner’s positions are rather close. And we can of the axioms of materialism. conclude that cultural–historical theory of Vygotsky may 3. Private events exist, consequently have a lot to offer behaviorology in achieving a better they are causes of something and effects understanding of the nature of behavior. Concerning the of something. agencyism of Vygotsky, however, we should say that there Covert behavior does have an influence upon overt is no generally accepted solution in that case. Rivière one. But we should understand that private events do not writes that in Vygotsky’s words consciousness exerts a cause behavior in the sense that cause is used in traditional causal influence over behavior. But can consciousness be psychology. First of all, causation is not necessarily direct. an agency if “consciousness does not occur as a specific Skinner wrote that “the private event is at best no more category, as a specific mode of being” as Vygotsky wrote in than a link in a causal chain, and it is usually not even “Consciousness as a problem of the psychology of behavior”? that. We may think before we act in the sense that we Vygotsky stated that consciousness is “a very complex may behave covertly before we behave overtly, but our structure of behavior,” and Skinner pointed out that self is action is not an “expression” of the covert response or “a device for representing a functionally unified system of the consequence of it.” So Skinner considers that private responses.” To my mind, they agree in views at this point, events may be at least “a link in a causal chain.” And and I dare say that for Vygotsky consciousness is not an secondly, causation is not a universal necessity. It has a agency, though his contradictory works allow coming probable status. to the absolutely different conclusion. In this respect, Skinner pointed out that “we cannot account for the Skinner has one indubitable and inestimable advantage behavior of any system while staying wholly inside it.” over Vygotsky: he created a consistent scientific language But can we study the behavior staying wholly outside? Page 18 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

We have to apply the law of negation of the negation and Firstly, selection by consequences is in essence model to go inside the subject for more complete description of interaction. Interaction is dialectical category that of behavior. But going inside we have to remember that, rejects stereotyped notion that cause and consequence are according to Skinner, “A purely private event would have two invariably adversarial poles. Either of interacting sides no place in a study of behavior, or perhaps in any science; is cause of another one and consequence of simultaneous but events which are, for the moment at least, accessible influence of opposite side. Therefore, we can suppose only to the individual himself often occur as links in that selection by consequences is a dialectical model chains of otherwise public events and they must then be of behavior determination. A consequence of a certain considered. In self–control and creative thinking, where behavior (change in the environment) is simultaneously the individual is largely engaged in manipulating his own a cause of that this behavior will happen more often or behavior, this is likely to be the case.” We have to save rarely. Nevertheless, we have to remember that causality no space for dualism. Private and public events are not and interaction are not interchangeable. physical and mental ones. And if a private event may not Secondly, laws of dialectic are applicable to be distinguished by any special structure or nature, we behaviorology. Take, for example, private and public can’t say that it does not have a causal eﬀect on behavior. events. Skinner wrote, “Covert behavior often seems to We can conclude that: be like overt except that it occurs on a smaller scale.” (a) The distorted image of Skinner’s radical behaviorism Can we say that quantitative change of behavior leads predominates in dialectical–materialist psychology. to qualitative change: public event becomes private (b) Dialectical–materialist psychology got stuck one (dialectical law of the transformation of quantity in mentalist terminology. It may be related to the into quality)? paradoxical fact that Marx was not a consistent There are three generally accepted domains of materialist, and psychology was an easy target for this science: physical, biological, and behavioral. In fact, this inconsistency as compared with natural sciences. In fact, division is a ladder of complexity of matter. Development Marx’s naturalism is distinct from both idealism and of physical events leads to the emergence of biological materialism, and unifies both of them. events, and development of biological events leads to the (c) However, dialectical materialism is scientific emergence of behavioral events. However, any biological materialism, first and last. The dialectical method event is at the same time physical one, and any behavioral demonstrates the power and eYciency in natural sciences event is biological and physical. Covert behavior emerges (e.g., biology and physics), and behaviorology, as natural from overt behavior, and can we say that it is the science, can rely on this method too. transition of the same order as the transition from, for So should behaviorology dialogue with dialectical example, physical level to biological. If it is so, then we materialism? I take the view that it should. And the most can fairly assert that private events are behavioral events, essential thing that behaviorology should learn from but at the same time they possess some characteristics this dialog is why dialectical materialism miscarried as that are absent on overt behavior level. For example, materialism. Dialectical–materialist doctrine tried to Vygotsky stated that inner speech emerges from outer stick to the same ideas as behavioral materialism: speech, but it has additional properties, for example, it (a) materialistic monism; is abbreviated. Moreover, if it is so, then private events (b) determinism; open up possibilities to collaboration of behaviorology (c) selectionism; and dialectic–materialist psychology. On this way, both (d) study of human behavior within the environment; of them should change. Behaviorology should pay more (e) emphasis on change (control) rather than description. attention for private events, and dialectic–materialist So why did dialectical materialism fail as materialism psychology should be less mentalist.1 in the field of behavioral sciences? The answer on this question is something for the future, but we need this answer. The historical records suggest that diVerent behaviorisms led to cognitivism, idealism, contextualism, and so on. Idealistic interpretations of radical behaviorism exist, and behaviorology should be aware of dead–end roads. The listed similarities are rather general, so in conclusion I would like to give two more concrete dialectical elements of behaviorology. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 19 Tempest in a Teapot: Relabeling Radical Behaviorism Will Not Rescue the Science or Practice of Behavior Analysis Thomas S. Critchfield* Illinois State University L Kimberly Epting* Elon University Abstract: As a means of addressing common misconceptions by philosophers of radical behaviorism, Morrow (2019) proposed using the substitute label behavioral materialism. We view this proposal as part of an important general mission to find ways of speaking that connect constructively with the repertoires of various kinds of listeners who are not experts in behaviorism and its associated science and practice wings. Nevertheless, the scholarly movement begun by B. F. Skinner faces more pressing problems than how it is regarded by philosophers, and we therefore expect Morrow’s proposal to have little bearing on the movement’s survival. The scholarly movement that B. F. Skinner initiated— long tradition of tinkering. Skinner (e.g., 1938) initially one subsuming philosophy, science, and technology— left his science of behavior unnamed, but came to call has for quite a while been hanging on by its metaphorical it the experimental analysis of behavior (eab; e.g., 1966) fingertips. Few would claim that Skinner’s movement to clearly distinguish it from approaches that focused has become a driving mainstream force in science, on mental constructs. An early name for the applied technology, or society. And the future is very much in technology that grew out of eab, behavior modification, doubt, due in part to erosion of the movement’s basic was largely abandoned after the discovery that the science wing (e.g., Poling, 2010) and an obsessive focus, public associated it with such unpleasant phenomena in the applied wing, on one rare disorder (e.g., Friman, as brainwashing, electroshock, and excessive application 2006) such that all that separates applied behavior analysis of drugs (e.g., Woolfolk, Woolfolk, & Terrence, 1977). (aba) from virtual extinction is the lack of a medical cure Gradually, custom turned to celebrating the translational for autism. Against this backdrop, Morrow (2019; in this links between eab and applied technology by employing issue) identifies yet another manifestation of failure to the umbrella label behavior analysis, with aba (e.g., Baer, thrive: that the philosophy of science associated with Wolf, & Risley, 1968) now the preferred substitute for Skinner’s movement has never been widely embraced by behavior modification. Numerous other labels, including philosophers, and in fact is regularly misunderstood by behaviorology (Vargas, 1994), praxics (Epstein, 1984), and them. Morrow’s essay serves as a reminder, as Skinner contextual behavior science (Hayes, Barnes–Holmes, & (1979) himself suggested, to “regard no practice as Wilson, 2012) have been proposed for various aspects of immutable. Change and be ready to change again” (p. the Skinnerian system. Although the currently popular 346). Old ways of doing business have achieved limited label behavior analysis has shortcomings (see Hantula, acceptance and few friends for Skinner’s movement, so Critchfield, & Rasmussen, 2018), we will rely on it here new approaches may be needed. for simplicity of expression. One place to start regards what to call the Morrow reminds us that names can matter not only movement itself, and Morrow’s proposal is part of a in science and technology but also in the associated ______*Address correspondence regarding this article, a commentary on Joseph Morrow’s article on Behavioral Materialism in this issue, to either author: T. Critchfield, Dept. of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal IL 61761 (email: [email protected]); L K. Epting, Dept. of Psychology, Elon University, Elon NC 27244 (email: [email protected]).

Key words: behavioral materialism, behaviorology, philosophy of science, radical behaviorism, behavior analysis Page 20 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 philosophy of science. His suggestion to recast radical demise of behavior modification more than four decades behaviorism as behavioral materialism addresses a general ago has been exaggerated, as three popular contemporary problem with deep historical roots, namely that “ways of textbooks on applied behavioral technology retain that speaking” in behavior analysis have always been fraught term in their titles (Kazdin, 2013; Martin & Pear, 2014; with unintended connotations resulting from speaker and Miltenberger, 2016). Whatever labeling inertia applies to listener behavior being under diVerential control. Put more these cases probably applies as well to radical behaviorism, casually, the behavioral speaker intends to say one thing, and we invite suggestions for how to make behavioral while the nonbehavioral listener hears quite another (e.g., materialism a routine component of the scholarly lexicon. Critchfield, et al., 2017; Foxx, 1990). Lindsley (1991) placed But, more centrally, let us imagine that a wholesale the blame for this problem squarely on Skinner who, as switch can somehow be engineered, so that anyone the originator of much of the dialect called “behaviorese,”1 formerly inclined to speak of radical behaviorism “sometimes chose words that meant diVerent things to henceforth says behavioral materialism. What would other people than they did to him. He never checked out follow from this relabeling? Morrow frames the answer what his technical words meant to most people” (p. 449). by noting some incorrect assumptions philosophers of Perhaps exacerbating the problem, Skinner—in abeyance science have made about radical behaviorism that might to his own advice to “change” when necessary—could be be avoided when the focus is on behavioral materialism. intransigent when challenged about the audience impact If relabeling allows philosophy, as a discipline, to do of his verbal system. For instance, when commenting its work with increased rigor, then we are all in favor... on the fact that people often construe control to mean but, with all due respect to philosophers, outside of this coerce, Skinner (1974) stated simply that, “Nothing is limited context it is unclear how much it matters what to be gained by using a softer word” (p. 181). Skinner philosophers of science do or say. also, in a subversion of the dictum that “the organism is Here we wish to tread carefully to avoid any appearance always right,” had a tendency to blame the victim when of disrespect for the diYcult work that philosophers functionally analyzing uncomplimentary responses to his undertake. We recognize that philosophy of science can system “In my experience,” he wrote, “the skepticism of provide valuable guidance to science and technology; thus, psychologists and philosophers about the adequacy of the individuals with the greatest odds of finding value in behaviorism is an inverse function of the extent to which radical behaviorism, er, behavioral materialism, are those they understand it” (Skinner, 1988, p. 472). Morrow takes working in eab and aba. In this regard we view Skinner as a the more appropriate tack of proposing that if philosophers near–ideal within–subject synthesis of philosophy, science, of science misunderstand radical behaviorism, this may and technology. But does this synthesis describe how science result from how radical behaviorism was discussed by its and technology normatively operate? More specifically, to proponents in the first place. what extent is the typical worker in eab or aba concerned We applaud the logic of Morrow’s proposal and with, and versed in, philosophy of science? We know of no will shortly consider some of its implications, but as a published data that speak to this issue, but common sense preliminary point, we wonder how Morrow would suggest suggests that most people who participate in the movement that his replacement for radical behaviorism be eVectively Skinner initiated are not philosophers of science. To wit: disseminated. For philosophers to encounter behavioral Recently we reviewed a manuscript describing a survey materialism, someone must speak and write about it, and of applied practitioners, only a minority of whom self– presumably this starts in the verbal behavior of radical identified as radical behaviorists. It is tempting to express behaviorists (er, behavioral materialists). How might alarm at this finding—the field is losing its philosophical those accustomed to speaking about radical behaviorism core!—but the finding is a fact considered out of context. We be induced to change their verbal ways? Of one thing we are aware of no data from any other successful disciplines are certain: Telling is not teaching, and simply declaring describing the relative philosophical sophistication of its the superiority of a new label rarely is suYcient to assure scientists and practitioners, so it is unclear whether the its adoption. For example, Lindsley (1991), noting that practice wing of behavior analysis is at all unusual in its consumers tend to misunderstand the technical language lukewarm embrace of philosophy. used in applied work, suggested what he called “Plain If speculation may be permitted, ours is that most English replacements”2 that he believed, based on a quarter basic scientists, applied scientists, and applied practitioners century of interacting with consumers, would be both are so busy confronting the practicalities of their full–time eVective and palatable. Nearly 30 years later, few, if any, jobs that, even if they are well–trained in philosophy, they of those replacements are in wide circulation. Even the ______2 Examples: relief instead of negative reinforcement; try, try 1 This label has come into common usage; the earliest again instead of experimentally analyze; and environmental reference we have found for it is Strike (1974, p. 108). behaviorism instead of radical behaviorism. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 21 have little time for philosophical reflection or analysis. are uninspired by behaviorism and its associated science At best, they may rely on what Dibbs (1982) called an and practice; they are drawn instead to disciplines and implicit philosophy of science, or what Pepper (1942) specializations that, in our opinion, oVer less eVective called a world hypothesis: a very general (and likely not tools and murkier conceptual frameworks. In a world consciously derived) sense of what constitutes a criterion where the philosophical underpinning of eab and aba of truth. Somehow, in the absence of explicit philosophical is behavioral materialism, will students who previously analysis, a lot of good has been accomplished over the ignored us begin flocking to our movement? years by a lot of behavior analysts. Without discounting Making science and technology optimally eVective the potential value of Skinnerian within–subject synthesis, is a real and crucial challenge. Ditto for gaining societal this suggests that in practice philosophy of science is support for science and technology, and recruiting new mostly the province of philosophers of science. If so, talent to these enterprises. To be very clear, Morrow’s then Morrow’s proposal addresses only a small slice of the general strategy seems relevant to all of these cases, in movement Skinner initiated. that carefully chosen verbal practices could help win Consider a thought experiment to test this idea. Let us converts to the movement. For instance, there is evidence imagine that workers in eab and aba all somehow become that, when shared with non behavior analysts, the jargon aware of Morrow’s re–designation; relevant textbooks of “behaviorese” tends to induce unpleasant emotional and graduate course become magically revised so that responses (Critchfield, et al., 2017), to adversely aVect philosophy of science is made central to the training of the social acceptability of behavioral interventions basic and applied researchers and applied practitioners, (Becirevic, Reed, & Critchfield, 2016; Witt, Moe, Gutkin, with that training now focused on behavioral materialism & Andrews, 1984), and even to impair intervention rather than radical behaviorism. What in eab and aba implementation integrity (Jarmolowicz, Kahng, can be expected to change as a result? Will researchers Invarsson, Goysovich, Heggemeyer, & Gregory, 2008). develop better experimental designs, resolve longstanding Systematic, audience–sensitive relabeling of concepts theoretical debates, or launch experiments on previously and interventions is likely to help with these problems. ignored topics? Will applied practitioners craft more Additionally, there is evidence that pairing a consumer powerful interventions and find ways to enhance quality product with a pleasant story tends to increase liking for of life for more people than before? Morrow’s focus that product (Strick & Volbeda, 2018). Presenting behavior was elsewhere, so he did not say, but if the intent was analysis to the public in conjunction with pleasant stories to suggest valuable trickle–down from philosophy to is likely to help with marketing the discipline. What seems science and technology, such a claim demands supporting unlikely is that relabeling the philosophical underpinnings evidence that remains to be supplied. of the discipline will directly address matters like these, And there is more. The survival of the movement or even help indirectly by guiding wise choices of how to Skinner started depends not just on the successes of communicate with non–philosopher audiences. behavior analysts in their everyday work, but also on the In the end, what we call a rose should depend on acceptance of that work in society. There is a long tradition who sniVs it. In the grand tradition of Skinner’s (1957) of bemoaning the Skinnerian movement’s chilly reception account of verbal behavior, the most eVective ways of from mainstream culture (e.g., Bailey, 1991; Critchfield, speaking are those that intersect productively with the 2011; Foxx, 1996; Freedman, 2015; Lindsley, 1991; Poling, behavior dynamics of an audience. Thus, the utility of 2011; Skinner, 1978, 1987). Complaints include that a proposal like Morrow’s is likely to be highly audience– basic scientists have limited access to academic jobs and specific. In this regard, Morrow was astute in identifying extramural research funds, and that consumers and public philosophers as his target audience, but verbal practices policy makers often favor nonbehavioral applied work over that satisfy philosophers probably will not resolve the aba. In a world where the philosophical underpinning problems of scientists and practitioners. Any verbal of eab and aba is behavioral materialism, will these reformulation applied to those problems will need to take problems be mitigated? Will each scientific or practical into account the specific audiences that are involved. success receive improved media attention, increased Ultimately, what most concerns us is not whether tangible support, and enhanced policy–level promotion Morrow has identified a real problem or suggested a valid compared to the baseline when radical behaviorism was its solution to it, but rather whether this battle—one targeting philosophical foundation? the acceptance of Skinner’s scholarly movement among Those questions apply to individuals who have already philosophers of science—is really the most important one committed to serving as foot soldiers in the Skinnerian to fight at this particular point in the history of ideas. Does movement, but in our work as university professors we are it matter whether philosophers of science give the system acutely aware of the challenge of identifying tomorrow’s Skinner initiated its proper due? Within the bounds of the scientists and practitioners. Far too many of our students discipline of philosophy, the answer likely is “yes,” and we Page 22 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 commend Morrow for a thoughtful consideration of this Jarmolowicz, J. P., Kahng, A., Invarsson, E. T., Goysovich, problem. Any broader import of the proposal to replace R., Heggemeyer, R., & Gregory, M. K. (2008). radical behaviorism with behavioral materialism remains EVects of conversational versus technical language to be demonstrated. Returning to our point that the on treatment preference and integrity. Intellectual and individuals most likely to find value in radical behaviorism Developmental Disabilities, 46, 190–199. are those engaged in eab and aba, we are unconvinced Kazdin, A. E. (2013). Behavior modification in applied that Morrow’s re–branding would substantially aVect these settings (7th Ed.). Long Grove, il: Waveland Press. enterprises. What seems more certain is that if eab and Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain aba cease to exist almost nobody will be left to care about English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior either radical behaviorism or behavioral materialism.2 Analysis, 24, 449–458. Martin , G., & Pear, J. (2014). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it (10th Ed.). New York: Pearson. References Miltenberger, R. G. (2016). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (6th Ed.). Boston: Cengage. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley T. R. (1968). Some Morrow, J. (2019). A rose by any other name: Behavioral current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. materialism. Journal of Behaviorology, 22 (1–2), 13–14. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Bailey, J. S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires diVerent Berkeley, ca: University of California Press. talk. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 445–448. Poling, A. (2010). Looking to the future: Will behavior analysis Becirevic, A., Critchfield, T. S., & Reed, D. D. (2016). survive and prosper? The Behavior Analyst, 33, 7–17. On the social acceptability of behavior–analytic Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An terms: Crowdsourced comparisons of lay and experimental analysis. ny: Appleton–Century. technical language. The Behavior Analyst, 39, 305–317. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Critchfield, T. S. (2011). To a young basic scientist, about Appleton–Century–Crofts. to embark on a program of translational research. Skinner, B. F. (1966). What is the experimental analysis The Behavior Analyst, 34, 133–148. of behavior? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Critchfield, T. S., Doepke, K. J., Epting, L. K., Becirevic, Behavior, 9, 213–218. A., Reed, D. D., Fienup, D. M., Kremsreiter, J. L., & Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf. Ecott, C. L. (2017). Normative emotional responses Skinner, B. F. (1978). Why don’t we use the behavioral to behavior analysis jargon or how not to use words sciences? Human Nature, 1, 86–92. to win friends and influence people. Behavior Analysis Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the in Practice, 10 (2), 97–106. science of behavior? American Psychologist, 42, 780–786. Dibbs, D. R. (1982). An investigation into the nature Skinner, B. F. (1988). Reply to Harnad. In A. C. Catania & and consequences of teachers’ implicit philosophies of S. Harnad (Eds.), The selection of behavior: The operant science (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http:// behaviorism of B. F. Skinner: Comments and consequences publications.aston.ac.uk/13257/ (pp. 468–473). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Epstein, R. (1984). The case for praxics. The Behavior Strick, M., & Volbeda, M. (2018). When the valence of Analyst, 7, 101–119. unconditioned stimuli evolves over time: Evaluative Foxx, R. M. (1990). Suggested common North American conditioning with good–ending and bad–ending stories. translations of expressions in the field of operant Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 50–55. conditioning. The Behavior Analyst, 13, 95–96. Strike, K. A. (1974). On the expressive potential of Foxx, R. M. (1996). Translating the covenant: The behaviorist language. American Educational Research behavior analyst as ambassador and translator. The Journal, 11 (2), 103–120. Behavior Analyst, 19, 147–161. Vargas, E. A. (1994). Behaviorology and the other Freedman, D. H. (2015). Improving the public perception behavioral sciences. Behaviorology, 2, 17–28. of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 1–7. Witt, J. C., Moe, G., Gutkin, T. B., & Andrews, L. (1984). Friman, P. C. (2006). The future of applied behavior analysis The eVect of saying the same thing in different ways: is under the dome. The ABA Newsletter, 29, 4–7. The problem of language and jargon in school–based Hantula, D., Critchfield, T. S., & Rasmussen, E. (2017). consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 361–367. Swan song. The Behavior Analyst, 40, 297–303. Woolfolk, A. E., Woolfolk, R. L., & Wilson, G. T. (1977). Hayes, S. C., Barnes–Holmes, D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). A rose by any other name...: Labeling bias and attitudes Contextual behavioral science: Creating a science more toward behavior modification. Journal of Consulting and adequate to the challenge of the human condition. Journal Clinical Psychology, 45, 184–191. of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1 (1–2), 1–16. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 23 The Name of the Rose Edward K. Morris* University of Kansas In Joe Morrow’s (2017) engaging article—“A Rose by Another Name: Behavioral Materialism”— the rose and the rose are B. F. Skinner’s (1904–1990) philosophy of his science of behavior and his name for it. The philosophy and its name did not emerge fully–formed, of course. They developed in concert with Skinner’s science in a bootstrap fashion. In his science, for instance, Skinner originally considered behavior to be reflexive, but by the mid–1930s, he had discovered the operant (Skinner, 1937; see Skinner, 1956). He called his science the experimental analysis of behavior (Skinner, 1938). In his philosophy, he was originally inclined toward logical positivism and operationism, but by the mid–1940s, he had extended his science to the behavior of scientists (Skinner, 1945; see Skinner, 1957, pp. 418–431). This was the philosophy of his science of behavior, which he called radical behaviorism. Science and philosophy evolve together—sometimes. Morrow notes, though, that Skinner’s philosophy is misunderstood because the radical in radical behaviorism is misunderstood. As an alternate, he suggests that behavioral materialism may be “the most accurate depiction of Skinner’s philosophy” (p. 24). Morrow’s concern is well taken, but it invites elaborating, parsing, and amending, as does behavioral materialism. I oVer these in the following sections on radical behaviorism, behavioral materialism, and descriptive behaviorism.

Radical Behaviorism not be included as a part of science because science depended on public or Morrow (2017) observes correctly that Skinner (1945) used consensual validation… Skinner wished radical in its primary lexical meaning of root or origin. to include private events, “feelings, Radical behaviorism meant that behavior was ultimately consciousness, states of mind” (1974, p. 4) the root or origin of psychology. Behavior is not only what within his field, even if only by inference, psychology studies, but also its subject matter. Related and thus he contrasted his radical or terms are all–inclusive, fundamental, and thoroughgoing all–inclusive behaviorism with what he (Michael, 1985; Ulman, 1991). Jack Michael (1985) called “methodological behaviorism,” the elaborated in “Behavior Analysis: A Radical Perspective”: more conventional view that insisted on Now, what about the term radical? consensual validation. (pp. 100–101) Among the common synonyms, When Skinner named his philosophy radical behaviorism thoroughgoing is probably the most in 1945, this was his first published use of the term. It had appropriate for the radical behaviorism a technical meaning. of John B. Watson, and likewise for Morrow (2017) also observes that radical has Skinner’s use of the term in 1945 to a secondary lexical meaning—extremism. This is a refer to his own approach (p. 277). In vernacular meaning. Here, radical behaviorism means that article he was clarifying the status extreme behaviorism. Related terms include drastic, of private stimuli and responses, which, revolutionary, and fanatical (Heward & Cooper, from a logical positivism viewpoint held 1992). Although, this secondary meaning leads radical by many behaviorists at the time, could behaviorism to be misunderstood, when the referents are ______*I thank Susan M. Schneider for her meticulous history of radical behaviorism and radical behaviorism (see Schneider & Morris, 1987) and Bryan D. Midgley for his perceptive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Correspondence may be sent to the Department of Applied Behavioral Science, 4017 Dole Human Development Center, University of Kansas, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045. Email: [email protected].

Key words: B. F Skinner, philosophy of science, radical behaviorism, behavioral materialism, behavior analysis, behaviorology Page 24 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 properly parsed, the misunderstanding dissolves. First, about—denying or ignoring mental phenomena. This extreme is not a misunderstanding of radical behaviorism: is not a misunderstanding. Mind is a hypothetical construct—it does not exist. This position is extreme in psychology, as noted below. Second, although extreme was not Skinner’s meaning of Behavioral Materialism radical, its technical and vernacular meanings are not opposed because their referents are not opposed. Radical Turning to behavioral materialism as an alternate for behaviorism is a philosophy; extreme is a characterization radical behaviorism, Morrow (2017) oVers a definition of it. Still, radical behaviorism and radical behaviorism are of materialism from the Random House Dictionary misunderstood when the meaning of radical as extreme (1980): “materialism holds that ‘matter and its motions causes conceptual confusion about its meaning as root or [constitute] the Universe, and all phenomena, including origin. Morrow is right. those of mind [are] due to material agencies’” (Morrow, 2017, p. 24). He then introduces his alternate— Some History behavioral materialism. Ulman (1991) had introduced the At this point, the history of radical behaviorism same term earlier for the same reasons: “The ontology of and radical behaviorism needs some amending. First, radical behaviorism is materialistic monism. We could Skinner did not coin the term radical behaviorism in just as appropriately call this philosophy behavioral 1945 (Schneider & Morris, 1987). Mary W. Calkins materialism” (pp. 61–62). Morrow turns for support (1863–1930) coined it in 1921. She called John B. Watson’s of this term in Skinner, behavior analysis, the social (1878–1958) classical behaviorism radical behaviorism, sciences, and philosophy. where, by radical, she meant extreme. His behaviorism was extreme, she averred, because it “denies or ignores B. F. Skinner what are known as mental phenomena” (Calkins, 1921, p. From Skinner’s works, Morrow (2017) oVers three 1; see Watson, 1913a, 1913b). Watson did not use the term. illustrative quotations: (a) “a private event may be Second, Skinner’s first known use of radical distinguished by its limited accessibility but not, so far behaviorism was not in 1945, but in an unpublished book as we know, by any special structure or nature” (Skinner, he began in the early 1930s—A Sketch for an Epistemology 1953, p. 257); (b) “Private events and pubic events have (Skinner, 1979, pp. 115–119, 146, 166, 311, 395; Skinner, the same kinds of physical dimensions” (Skinner, 1963, 1983, pp. 279, 395). The only part he published was p. 953); and (c) “A basic principle of behaviorism which his article, “The Generic Nature of the Concepts of has guided me throughout my professional life [but Stimulus and Response” (Skinner, 1935). In the Sketch, which I have neglected to emphasize in my writings (it Skinner distinguished between radical behaviorism and is neglected in About Behaviorism)] is the importance of methodological behaviorism. When asked in the 1980s converting mentalistic terms to alternatives which refer what he meant by radical behaviorism in the 1930s, he to things having physical dimensions” (Skinner, 1980, p. replied: “I don’t believe I invented the phrase ‘radical 197). The quotations, however, do not include matter, behaviorism.’ I think it was in the air at the time” material, or materialism, but instead, nature, structure, (Schneider & Morris, 1987, p. 33). What was in the air and physical, the last implying physicalism. was Watson’s radical behaviorism. Skinner’s use of physical may have been due to a In naming his behaviorism radical behaviorism in the greater familiarity with and aYnity to physicalism than 1930s, Skinner may have meant radical in one or both materialism. First, materialism (contra. immaterialism) of two senses, but not in opposing senses. He may have dates to ancient Greek philosophy, whereas physicalism meant that it was extreme in psychology or that it denied was more modern. Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) and Otto or ignored mental phenomena. Regarding the latter, he Neurath (1882–1945) introduced it into the philosophy wrote in his 1979 autobiographical volume, quoting in of science—notably, into logical positivism and part from the Sketch: operationism—in the 1930s, after which it sometimes …I preferred the position of radical supplanted materialism (Stoljar, 2017; see Moore, 2008, behaviorism, in which the existence of p. 40). Second, in being inclined to logical positivism subjective entities is denied. I proposed and operationism in the 1930s (Skinner, 1938, 1945), to regard subjective terms as “verbal Skinner was acquainted with Carnap’s work, even as their constructs, as grammatical traps into which physicalisms later diVered (Moore, 1985). At the time, the human race in the development of Skinner referred to Carnap as the “latest behaviorist” language has fallen.” (Skinner, 1979, p. 117) (Skinner, 1979, p. 149; see also pp. 158, 159, 213, 281; 1983, Thus, in the early 1930s, Skinner’s philosophy was p. 128; see Flanagan, 1980). radical in being extreme and in what it was extreme Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 25

Behavior Analysis 1978, 1980), noting that “The similarity between the In behavior analysis, Morrow (2017) notes that terms behavioral materialism and cultural materialism is materialism and materialism are aligned with Skinner’s intentional” (p. 25)—Morrow’s intention. Both radical philosophy of science. In support, he quotes Creel behaviorism and cultural materialism “explain all human (1980), who noted that “Skinner aYrms philosophical conduct based on real events in a material world” (p. materialism” (p. 34); Flanagan (1980), who concluded 25). Their complementarity is now well–accepted (see that Skinner was a “metaphysical materialist” (p. 10); Glenn, 1988; Lloyd, 1985; Malagodi, 1986; Vargas, 1985). and Moore (1985), who called Skinner’s physicalism Morrow (2017) next turns to Karl Marx’s (1818–1883) “something akin to metaphysical materialism” (p. 59). I dialectical materialism (K. Marx 1867/1887), noting that oVer two additional supports. the similarity between dialectical materialism and cultural In “Some Fundamentals of B. F. Skinner’s materialism was also intentional—Harris’s intention. Behaviorism,” Delprato and Midgley (1992) included Just as Skinner may be regarded as the Darwin of the materialism as a fundamental assumption. They behavioral sciences, Harris regarded Marx as “the Darwin described it concisely—“Materialism: Dualism Is False; of the social sciences” (p. 25). the Only World Is a Physical World” (pp. 1511–1512)— Like Skinner and Darwin, Marx had destructive and then defined it: “Materialism asserts that the world is and constructive programs. In his destructive program, composed of physical or material things, varying in their he criticized mentalism. For example: “Life is not states and relations, and nothing else” (p. 1512). This, they determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” wrote, was Skinner’s monism—his material monism (see (Marx & Engels, 1845–1846/1932, p. 47; see also the also Flanagan, 1980). They also provided five illustrative Preface in K. Marx, 1859/1977). In Marx’s constructive quotations from Skinner, but none of them referred to program, Morrow (2017) lists six components of matter or materialism, only to the physical, for example: dialectical materialism that advance the social sciences. No special mind stuV is assumed. A The first five are consistent with radical behaviorism: physical world generates both physical “(a) an objective approach to the social sciences, (b) a action and the physical conditions within comprehensive analysis, (c) a historical approach, (d) a study the body to which a person responds when of practical demands, and (e) pinpointing the crucial link a verbal community arranges the necessary for change…” (p. 25; see Skinner, 1953, 1974). The sixth contingencies. (Skinner, 1974, p. 230) component is inconsistent: “…determining the inner This may have been due, again, to Skinner’s greater sources of development by exposing the contradictions familiarity with and aYnity to physicalism. which caused it” (p. 25). What separates Skinner’s, In Radical Behaviorism for ABA Practitioners, Harris’s, and Morrow’s materialism from Marx’s was Johnston (2014) includes radical behaviorism in his Marx’s incorporation of Hegel’s (1770–1831) dialectics glossary, but not materialism or physicalism. However, (Hegel, 1817/1991) and his version of them (see K. Marx, he definedradical behaviorism in terms of the physical: 1867/1887), which Morrow properly critiques. “Radical behaviorism: The philosophy of the science of Although Marx—like Darwin and Skinner—was behavior analysis, which focuses on behavior as a purely misunderstood (Ulman, 1979, 1986), the materialism physical phenomenon” (p. 207). Johnston’s book is full of associated with Hegel, Marx, Engels, and then the physical, but not the material, for example: Communism might lead behavioral materialism to be In spite of any discomfort with the further misunderstood. Behavioral materialism would implications of determinism, the be associated with Stalinist–style dictatorships and anti– assumption that physical events are fully Capitalist economics (see, e.g., Foster, 1978), associations explainable in terms of other physical that might be strengthened by Skinner’s writings on events has a long and respected position in intentional communities, freedom and dignity, and the natural sciences. (p. 5; see also p. 182) religion (e.g., Skinner, 1948, 1953, 1971, 1987). In Western To the extent that materialism is synonymous democracies, these associations would make Skinner’s with physicalism, behavioral materialism (or behavioral philosophy unappealing at best. Still, complementarities physicalism) may be a more accurate depiction of Skinner’s do exist between radical behaviorism and Marxism that philosophy than radical behaviorism, but materialism warrant closer analysis (see, e.g., Kolb, 1988; Skinner, can be misleading, as I note later. 1985; Ulman, 1991; see Cavalcanti e Castro, 2016). Social Sciences Philosophy In the social sciences, Morrow (2017) puts behavioral In philosophy, Morrow (2017) correctly dates the materialism into a broader context. He begins with origins of materialism to the Greek philosophers, Marvin Harris’s (1927–2001) cultural materialism (Harris, Leucippus (ca. 5th century b.c.e.) and Democritus Page 26 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

(~460–370 b.c.e.). Their materialism, though, was In the history of psychology, psychology’s first atomistic. It reduced matter to inert, indivisible elements, school or system was Structuralism—1880–1910. It making their materialism reductionistic, mechanistic, sought to describe the structure of the mind through and essentialistic. Although Skinner equivocated on the introspection of its elements. The second was biological reductionism (Delprato & Midgley, 1992), Functionalism—1900–1915. It sought to describe Greek materialism was not Skinner’s materialism (see the functions of mind and behavior. The third was Moore, 2008; Morris, 1993; Palmer & Donohoe, 1992). Behaviorism—1910–1930. It sought to describe the Two thousand years later, materialism re–emerged in functions of behavior, while setting mind aside or Western philosophy as the body in Rene Descartes’ denying it. In the early 1930s, Skinner named his (1596–1640) mind–body dualism. Nonhuman animals behaviorism radical behaviorism, but it was not often were machines; humans were not. Humans had minds; called that until the 1960s. Between the 1930s and 1960s, nonhumans did not. When the French Materialist, Julian it was sometimes called descriptive behaviorism (Leahey, OVay de La Mettrie (1709–1751) proposed that humans 2013, p. 385; Schneider & Morris, 1987), as it is today, but were animals, too, then their bodies were also machines Skinner did not use the term. He criticized it: and, as machines, they were material. This version of Descriptive behaviorism is too close to materialism, though, was vitalistic—biology’s version mere structuralism. We are dealing with of agency. Thus, although the historian, Thomas Hardy functional relations. They are not carried Leahey (2013, p. 177), noted an aYnity between Skinner’s by “radical behaviorism” either, but no science and system and French Materialism, it was again contrary suggestion is made. (Schneider not Skinner’s materialism (Stoljar, 2017; see Moore, & Morris, 1987, p. 34) 2008, p. 40). This was, perhaps, another reason Skinner Materialism is subject to the same criticism as descriptive preferred physicalism to materialism. behaviorism: It is too close to structuralism and does Two related terms provide perhaps better support for not deal with functional relations. Behavior analysis Morrow’s (2017) behavioral materialism. One is Aristotle’s is misleading in the same sense. As a noun, behavior (384–322 b.c.e.) material cause among his four causes— implies structure or form, not meaning or function. For the material, formal, eYcient, and final causes. A material this reason, in part, other terms have been proposed for cause is “that out of which a thing comes–to–be…, for the name of the field and its philosophy, among them, example, the bronze is a cause of a statue…” (see Aristotle, praxics (Epstein, 1984), behaviorology (Fraley & Vargas, 1941). In Skinner’s science, the biological organism and 1986), empirical behaviorism (Bijou, 1999), and functional the physical environment are “that out of which” the contextualism (Zettle, Hayes, Barnes‐Holmes, & Biglan, three–term contingency comes to be (see Killeen, 2001; 2016). This point notwithstanding, the distinction Moore, 2008, pp. 70–72). Another term is naturalism— between description and explanation further clarifies Aristotle’s naturalism (contra. supernaturalism). Its role what Skinner meant by radical behaviorism. in the origins and success of science is not disputed, nor is its role in attempts to naturalize psychology, albeit as– Description and Explanation yet unrealized (see Kantor, 1963; N. Smith, 1993). Skinner’s criticism of descriptive behaviorism above is unusual. By description, he meant structure, which he contrasted with function, whereas description is usually Descriptive Behaviorism contrasted with explanation. As I note later, Skinner was aware of the latter distinction, which I introduce with Thus far, I have addressed four meanings of materialism a definition ofdescriptive behaviorism from the APA in behavioral materialism. The first was materialism and Dictionary of Psychology (Vandenbos, 2006), which only materialism in Skinner’s writings, but Skinner more a few psychology dictionaries include: often used physical than material or materialism. The Descriptive behaviorism an approach to second was materialism and materialism in behavior the study of behavior espoused by B. F. analysis, but they, too, were more physical than material. Skinner, who felt that psychology should The third was the materialism and materialism in limit itself to a description of behaviors cultural and dialectical materialism, but the latter has of organisms, the conditions under political and economic associations that might lead to which they occur, and their eVects on the misunderstandings. The fourth was Leucippus’s and environment. It requires that theoretical Democritus’s materialism, but its ontology is inconsistent explanations in terms of underlying with Skinner’s, as is that of French Materialism. In this biological or hypothetical psychological section, I address a final meaning of materialism—one processes be avoided. (p. 271) related to descriptive behaviorism. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 27

The definition is equivocal. Ifdescription concerns the of behavior, for instance, principles of operant behavior study of the structural relations among “behaviors of (e.g., reinforcement; see Catania, 2013). These relations organisms, the conditions under which they occur, and explain much of behavior, just as they do in any natural their eVects on the environment,” this was not Skinner’s science. Experimental analyses also discover derived or approach. His approach was functional: the study of higher–order functional relations (e.g., stimulus control, the functional relations among them. More to the relational frame theory; see, e.g., Catania, 2013). These point, the definition states that descriptive behaviorism explain more behavior, just as derived and higher–order avoids “theoretical explanations in terms of underlying functional relations do in other natural sciences. biological or hypothetical psychological processes.” On Theory. One class of theories are empirical–inductive this account—a standard account—Skinner’s approach integrations of basic principles and derived or higher–order describes behavior, but does not explain it (see Hilgard, functional relations. These might be designated as Theory, 1948, p. 116; Kendler & Spence, 1971; M. Marx, 1951, p. which is ubiquitous in science. According to Skinner 439). This is misleading and mischievous. (1950), this is “a formal representation of the data reduced Skinner (1938) addressed the distinction between to a minimum number of terms [that] may yield greater description and explanation in The Behavior of Organisms, generality than any assemblage of facts” (pp. 215–216). but used the terminology of logical positivism and From this, hypotheses about behavior might be deduced, operationism. This has contributed to misunderstandings basic and derived or higher–order functional relations of radical behaviorism (see Flanagan, 1980; Moore, 1985): might be predicted, and hypotheses and predictions So far as scientific method is concerned, about them might be confirmed, with the new functional the system set up in the preceding relations then subject to experimental analysis (Skinner,

chapter [“A System of Behavior”] may be 1947; e.g., Honig & Staddon, 1977). Theory1 explains characterized as follows. It is positivistic. behavior, as it does in other natural sciences and in natural It confines itself to description rather than history. Psychology has no hegemony over theory. explanation. Its concepts are defined in Another class of theories is behavioral interpretation. terms of immediate observations and are It, too, is ubiquitous in science. It might be designated as

not given local or physiological properties. Theory2: interpretations of behavior based on and constrained A reflex is not an arc, a drive is not the by its basic principles, derived or higher–order functional

state of a center, extinction is not the relations, and Theory1 (Donohoe & Palmer, 1994). Theory2 exhaustion of a physiological substance may be informal, as in Skinner’s (1957) Verbal Behavior, or or state. Terms of this sort are used merely a formal basis for empirical research (e.g., Valdez–Menchaca to bring together groups of observations, & Whitehurst, 1988), as it is in other natural histories. Again, to state uniformities, and to express psychology has no hegemony over theory. properties of behavior which transcend This distinction between description and explanation single instances. They are not hypotheses, is oversimplified. It does not address the deeper and in the sense of things to be proved or broader implications of those terms and their relations disproved, but convenient representations in philosophy, science, explanation, theory, empiricism, of things already known. (p. 44) hypothesis, induction, deduction, and logic. For fuller By explanation, Skinner meant explanation in terms reviews, see Cheisa (1994); Hineline (1990); Moore (2000, of mental phenomena and subjective entities and 2003); Morris, Todd, and Midgley (1993); L. Smith (1986, hypothetical–deductive theories about them. In pp. 258–297); Tonneau (2008); and Verplanck (1954). psychology, these explain behavior. In radical behaviorism Work remains. (Skinner, 1950), they do not explain behavior because they appeal to immaterialism—immaterial processes and structures—or to material structures and processes acting Conclusion in immaterial ways (e.g., mentalistically; see Barrett, 2011; Bennett & Hacker, 2012). By description, Skinner meant Morrow’s (2017) concern that the meaning of radical descriptions of functional relations, their prediction and in radical behaviorism might lead to misunderstandings control, and empirical–inductive theories about them. of Skinner’s philosophy of the science of behavior is These explain behavior. well–taken. As an alternate, he suggests that behavioral Functional relations. As for functional relations, the materialism may be “the most accurate depiction of experimental analysis of behavior discovers them among Skinner’s philosophy.” I am not as sanguine. It may responses and their consequences and their antecedents lead to other misunderstandings, some graver than (e.g., in the three–term contingency). Relations that are those implied by radical behaviorism. Even if Skinner’s highly reliable over time and place are basic principles philosophy is the most eVective philosophy for a science Page 28 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 of behavior, the history and philosophy of science may Harris, M. (1978). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of care little about what it is (or was) called. What is more Cultures. New York: Random House. important is psychology’s evolution as a natural science Harris, M. (1980). Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a and natural history. Still, we should not countenance Science of Culture. New York: Random House. misunderstandings of radical behaviorism that would Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). Encyclopedia of Philosophical impede its evolution. Thank you, Joe, for reminding us. Sciences, Part 1. (Trans. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, & H. S. Harris). Indianapolis, in: Hackett, 1991. Coda (Original work published 1817.) Heward, W. L., & Cooper, J. O. (1992). Radical “That which we call a rose by any other name would behaviorism: A productive and needed philosophy of smell as sweet.” education. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 345–365. Hilgard, E. A. (1948). Theories of Learning. New York: Shakespeare (1597/1914) Appleton–Century–Crofts. Hineline, P. N. (1990). The origins of environment–based References psychological theory. Journal of the E x p e r i m e n t a l Analysis of Behavior, 53, 305–320. Aristotle (1941). Basic Works of Aristotle (R. McKeon, Ed; Honig, W. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (Eds.). (1977). Trans. J. A. Smith). New York: Random House. Handbook of Operant Behavior. Englewood CliVs, nj: Barrett, L. (2011). Beyond the Brain: How Body and Prentice–Hall. Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Johnston, J. M. (2014). Radical Behaviorism for ABA Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Practitioners. Cornwall–on–Hudson, ny: Sloan. Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2012). The History of Kantor, J. R. (1963). The Scientific Evolution of Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience. New York: Wiley–Blackwell. Vol. 1. Chicago: Principia Press. Bijou, S. W. (1999). Empirical behaviorism. In W. Kendler, H. H., & Spence, J. T. (1971). Tenets of O’Donohue & Kitchener (Eds.), Handbook of neobehaviorism. In H. H. Kendler & J. T. Spence (Eds.), Behaviorism (pp. 179–193). New York: Academic Press. Essays in Neobehaviorisn: A Memorial Volume to Kenneth W. Calkins, M. W. (1921). The truly psychological Spence (pp. 11–40). New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, behaviorism. Psychological Review, 28, 1–18. Killeen, P. R. (2001). The four causes of behavior. Current Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Cornwall–on– Dimensions in Psychological Science, 10, 136–140. Hudson, ny: Sloan. Kolb, W. (1978). B. F. Skinner’s radical behaviorism: Cavalcanti e Castro, T. (2016). Análise do domportamento Logical positivism or dialectical materialism? e marxismo: (Im)possibilidades de dialogo. Goiânia, Behaviorists for Social Action Journal, 1 (1), 30–55.

Brazil: Universidade Federal de Goias. Leahey, T. H. (2013). A History of Psychology: From Cheisa, M. (1994). Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy Antiquity to Modernity (7thed.). Boston, ma: Pearson. and the Science. Boston, ma: Authors Cooperative. Lloyd, K. E. (1985). Behavioral anthropology: A review of Creel. R. (1980). Radical epiphenomenalism: B. F. Skinner’s Marvin Harris’s Cultural Materialism. Journal of the account of private events. Behaviorism, 8, 31–53. Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 279–287. Delprato, D. J., & Midgley, B. D. (1992). Some Malagodi, E. F. (1986). On radicalizing behaviorism: A fundamentals of B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism. call for cultural analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 1–17. American Psychologist, 47, 1507–1520. Marx, K. (1977). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1994). Learning and Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers. (Original Complex Behavior. Boston, ma: Allyn & Bacon. work published 1859.) Epstein, R. (1984). The case for praxics. The Behavior Marx, K. (1887). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Analyst, 7, 101–119. (Trans. S.) Moore & E. Aveling). Moscow: Progress Flanagan, O. J. (1980). Skinnerian metaphysics and the Publishers. (First German ed. published 1867.) problem of operationism. Behaviorism, 8, 1–13. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (Eds.). (1932). The German Foster, S. P. (1978). Marxism and behaviorism: Ideological Ideology, Part 1. Moscow: Marx–Engels Institute. parallels. Dialogue, 21 (1), 1–8. (Original work written 1845–1846.) Fraley, L. E., & Vargas, E. A. (1986). Separate disciplines: Marx, M. H. (1951). Psychological Theory. New The study of behavior and the study of the psyche. York: Macmillan. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 47–59. Michael, J. L. (1985). Behavior analysis: A radical perspective. Glenn, S. S. (1988). Continencies and metacontingencies: In B. Hammonds (Ed.), The Master Lecture Series: Vol. Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural 4. Psychology and Learning (pp. 99–121). Washington, materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 161–179. dc: American Psychological Association. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 29

Moore, J. (1985). Some historical and conceptual Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty.Science, 140, 951–958. relations among logical positivism, operationism, and Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 53–63. York: Knopf. Moore, J. (2000). Varieties of scientific explanation.The Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage. Behavior Analyst, 23, 173–190. Skinner, B. F. (1979). The Shaping of a Behaviorist. New Moore, J. (2003). Explanation and description in York: Knopf. traditional neobehaviorism, cognitive psychology, Skinner, B. F. (1980). Notebooks. Englewood CliVs, nj: and behavior analysis. In K. A. Lattal & P. N. Chase Prentice–Hall. (Eds.), Behavior Theory and Philosophy (pp. 13–39). Skinner, B. F. (1983). A Matter of Consequences. New York: Knopf. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Skinner, B. F. (1985). News from nowhere, 1984. The Moore, J. (2008). Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behavior Analyst, 8, 5–14. Behaviorism. Cornwall–on–Hudson, ny: Sloan. Skinner, B. F. (1987). What religion means to me. Free Morris, E. K. (1993). Behavior analysis and mechanism: Inquiry, 7 (2), 12–13. One is not the other. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 25–43. Smith, L. D. (1986). Logical Positivism and Behaviorism: Morris, E. K., Todd, J. T., & Midgley, B. D. (1993). A Reassessment of their Alliance. Stanford, ca: Stanford Prediction and control: From Watson to Skinner and University Press. beyond. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 19, 103–131. Smith, N. W. (Ed.). (1993). Greek and Interbehavioral Morrow, J. E. (2017). A rose by any other name: Psychology: Selected and Revised Papers of Noel W. Smith Behavioral materialism. Operants, 11 (3), 24–25. [See (2nd ed.). Lanham, md: University Press of America. pp. 13–14 in this issue.—Ed.] Stoljar, D. (2017). Physicalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Palmer, D. C., & Donahoe, J. W. (1992). Essentialism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, ca: The and selectionism in cognitive science and behavior Metaphysics Research Lab. tps://plato.stanford.edu/ analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1344–1358. archives/win2017/entries/physicalism/ Random House Dictionary (1980). New York: Ballantine. Tonneau, F. (2008). The concept of reinforcement: Explanatory Schneider, S. M., & Morris, E. K. (1987). A history of the or descriptive? Behavior and Philosophy, 36, 87–96. term radical behaviorism: From Watson to Skinner. Ulman, J. (1979). A critique of “Skinnerianism: The Behavior Analyst, 10, 27–39. Materialism minus the dialectic.” Behaviorists for Shakespeare, W. (1914). Romeo and Juliet. In J. W. Craig Social Action Journal, 1 (2), 1–8. (Ed.), The Complete Works of William Shakespeare Ulman, J. (1986). A behavioral–Marxist reply to Schwarz (Act 2, Scene 2). New York: Oxford University Press. and Lacey. Behaviorism, 14, 45–49. (Original work published 1597.) Ulman, J. (1991). Toward a synthesis of Marx and Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of Skinner. Behavior and Social Issues, 1, 57–70. stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, Valdez–Menchaca, M. C. & Whitehurst, G. J. (1988). 12, 40–65. The eVects of incidental, teaching on vocabulary Skinner B. F. (1937). Two types of conditioned reflex: acquisition in young children. Child Development, A reply to Konorski and Miller. Journal of General 59, 1451–1459. Psychology, 16, 272–279. Vandenbos, G. R. (Ed.). (2006). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Washington, dc: American Psychological Association. Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton– Vargas, E. A. (1985). Cultural contingencies: A review of Century–Crofts. Marvin Harris’s Cannibals and kings. Journal of the Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 419–428. terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277, 291–294. Verplanck, W. S. (1954). Burrhus F. Skinner. In W. K. Skinner, B. F. (1947). Experimental psychology. In W. Estes (Ed.), Modern Learning Theory (pp. 267–316). Dennis (Ed.), Current Trends in Psychology (pp. 16– New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts. 49). Pittsburgh, pa: University of Pittsburgh Press. Watson, J. B. (1913a). Image and aVection in behavior. Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden Two. New York: Macmillan. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary. Methods, 10, 421–428. Psychosocial Review, 57, 193–216. Watson, J. B. (1913b). Psychology as the behaviorist views Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177. York: Macmillan. Zettle, R. D., Hayes, S. C., Barnes‐Holmes, D., & Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case study in scientific method. Biglan, A. (Eds.) (2016). The Wiley Handbook of American Psychologist, 11, 221–233. Contextual Behavioral Science. New York: Wiley. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Englewood CliVs, nj: Prentice–Hall. Page 30 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

Visit BOOKS at www.behaviorology.org At www.behaviorology.org tibi provides information on as many behaviorology resources as possible, including books and audio/ visual materials, as well as electronic versions of back issues of Journal of Behaviorology and its predecessor Behaviorology Today. Some recently described books are (a) Science Works on Human Behavior by Stephen Ledoux, (b) two Study Question books by Lisa Ramond (aka Lisa Brothers) on Lawrence Fraley’s Dignifed Dying book and his Rehabilitation book, (c) What Causes Human Behavior—Stars, Selves, or Contingencies? by Stephen Ledoux, and (d) several behaviorological books about companion animal training by James O’Heare. Check out them all! Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 31 The Behaviorology Movement DiVers from Other Behavioral Organizations: Comments prompted by Joseph Morrow’s Behavioral Materialism paper Lawrence E. Fraley* West Virginia University, Morgantown (Retired) Abstract: Morrow (2019) describes the benefits of an alternative name for the philosophy of science of the natural science of behavior. But the success of any new name, and even the success of this discipline, rests mostly on the training and organizing of scientists of behavior.

The paper under discussion (Morrow, 2019) pointed focused on behavioral phenomena with respect to which out the ongoing problems with the term radical that deviating practitioner tends to “go mystical.” behaviorism as the name of the philosophy of science As has been traditional, most organizations that of the natural science of behavior, and then described focus on behavior tend to rely on political strength and a carefully considered solution of switching to the term thus tend to be focused heavily on their population behavioral materialism as the name of this philosophy growth. Such politics is not necessarily exercised of science. The success of such a solution, with this or with respect to matters of state, but more typically some other term, and even the success of the natural reflects the organization’s approach to academic and science of behavior, faces constraints by another, broader, professional matters. Political objectives are, of course, and potentially more vital consideration regarding ubiquitous. However, the traditional approaches to the training and organizing of the behavior scientists solving organizational problems politically are less whose philosophy of science is being addressed. These emphasized within organized behaviorology, which constraints are the point of this paper. remains focused on the quality of its science. Among Organized behaviorology represents a group of natural other organizations focusing on behavioral phenomena, scientists whose field is the study of behavior. More a higher premium tends to be placed on amassing a specifically, the primary concerns are (a) why on a given numerical predominance in membership to enhance occasion a particular response occurs, and (b) refinement the organization’s “political clout,” which tends to occur of the contingency–engineering interventions that would at the expense of that organization’s scientific integrity. be required to change the form and frequency of such a In such organizations an individual’s mere membership response. Behaviorology derives its philosophy of science, tends to trump the scientific quality of that individual’s and its way of solving problems, from its respect for the contribution. The organization’s ranks become swollen naturalistic perspective. Behaviorological problem solving by lowering admission standards as numerical strength is free of any recourse to supernatural or mystical aspects. becomes more important than strict adherence to Within the organized field of behaviorology, a practitioner a philosophy of natural science under any name. who would focus narrowly on behaviorological solutions Consequently those politically focused organizations, only for certain kinds of behavioral problems, while in simplifying their membership requirements, typically resorting to mystical causation in approaching other strengthen their traditional political power at the expense kinds of behavioral issues, would be regarded as a of their scientific integrity (Fraley & Ledoux, 2015). behaviorological scientist of diminished quality— Furthermore, the training of potential recruits tends to especially by other behaviorologists whose specialties become oversimplified, thus making it easier for larger

______*Address correspondence regarding this article, a commentary on Joseph Morrow’s article on Behavioral Materialism in this issue, to the author at [email protected].

Key words: behavioral materialism, behaviorology, philosophy of science, radical behaviorism, behavior analysis Page 32 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 numbers of individuals to present as potential members that such a science, now called behaviorology, has of such organizations. existed for over 100 years (Ledoux, 2012), it becomes With respect to a concern being addressed in this our responsibility to make this more clear. And it is the journal issue, within a behaviorology organization debate existing natural science community per se that must often erupts with respect to terminology. B. F. Skinner recognize this fact by comparing the scientific integrity was a master of nomenclature. He chose his terms with of behaviorology to that of alternative behavior–focused great accuracy and sophistication, a fact to which the organizations. Only then can the natural–science “worn and torn” state of my Websters dictionary attests. community eVectively address its need to complete itself I taught his terms for over 30 years to a wide spectrum by incorporating the only behavioral field that maintains of university students. And they mastered them. As an uncompromised commitment to pure natural a general observation, in my experience the quality of science. instruction oVered by most university faculty members is commensurate with their own formal training in the contingency–engineering practices to which the phrase References instructional process refers. In contrast to the approaches featured in politically Fraley, L. E. & Ledoux, S. F. (2015). Origins, status, and purposed organizations, our behaviorological mission of behaviorology. In S. F. Ledoux. Origins organization exists, not in general service to political and Components of Behaviorology—Third Edition (pp. goals, but in support of our natural science. As such, 33–169). Ottawa, Canada: BehaveTech Publishing. while the depth of our ranks is important, natural Originally published in 1992, this multi–chapter science requires the kind of conceptual integrity that paper also appeared across 2006–2008 in these five characterizes our behaviorological activity. The objective parts in Behaviorology Today (the precursor of Journal of our organization is to bring about a major cultural of Behaviorology; see the “Journal” page at www. change—namely the inclusion of behavioral phenomena behaviorology.org): Chapters 1 & 2: 9 (2), 13–32; as the fourth major subject matter at the roundtable of Chapter 3: 10 (1), 15–25; Chapter 4: 10 (2), 9–33; natural sciences: energy (physics), matter (chemistry), life Chapter 5: 11 (1), 3–30; Chapters 6 & 7: 11 (2), 3–17. (biology), and behavior (behaviorology). The culture– Ledoux, S. F. (2012). Behaviorism at 100 unabridged. wide importance of behavioral phenomena demands Behaviorology Today, 15 (1), 3–22. this change. Having noted that human behavior causes Ledoux, S. F. (2014). Running Out of Time—Introducing global problems, and that changes in human behavior Behaviorology to Help Solve Global Problems. Ottawa, are required to solve global problems, traditional natural Canada: BehaveTech Publishing. scientists have called for a natural science of human Morrow, J. E. (2019). A rose by another name: Behavioral behavior (Ledoux, 2014). As they have not yet realized Materialism. Journal of Behaviorology, 22 (1–2), 13–14. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 33 Radical is right for Behaviorism John B. Ferreira* Ess–Plus Behaviorological Counseling (Retired)

Abstract: A brief evolutionary synopsis is presented as the basis for the defense of the use of “radical” to adequately complete the definition of the natural science philosophy of behaviorism. Skinner’s definition of radical behaviorism is the foundation of Behaviorology, the natural science of behavior. Behaviorology is dedicated to the task of accumulating and disseminating information based on operationally defined variables thereby eliminating the need to rename or re–label the philosophy of behaviorism. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, has long been challenged the suYciency of consciousness in the world regarded as the study of the nature of knowledge, of psychiatry and placed its emphasis upon unconscious existence, reasoning, values, and the human mind. dispositions. The third dissenting discipline was Fundamental questions in this quest for knowledge American behaviorism which evolved into the present– led to philosophical methods of discovery such as day radical behaviorism. questioning, discussions, rational arguments, logical The purpose of this paper is to offer a brief synopsis debates, and organized presentations. of the evolution and defense of “radical behaviorism” By the nineteenth century Western philosophy had from its initial pubescent relationship with psychology to encompassed specialized subfields such as astronomy, the current time–tested maturity within the philosophy medicine, chemistry, and physics that were collectively of behaviorology. To psychologists, a variety of referred to as natural philosophy. It was during this behaviorisms offered several methodological approaches period that the rapid growth of research universities to animal and human study with the promise that continued to support the specialization of academic psychology would one day make itself as objective as the disciplines. Psychology was one of the disciplines that physical sciences. In addition, some behaviorisms would separated from philosophy and then professionalized provide a mechanistic or materialistic view of psychology by adopting the position as the science of behavior and consistent with methodological behaviorism. Neither of mind including conscious and unconscious phenomena. these objectives were met. It attempted to understand human mental functions in Psychology continued to be dominated by addition to social and cognitive behaviors. Introspection introspective mind concepts despite the vigorous or the reliance of self–observation remained one of its opposition from methodological behaviorism. John B. principal methodologies. Bertrand Russell (1967, p. 19) Watson, who had coined the term “behaviorism” and described his impression of introspection by stating was a formidable supporter of its position relative to that “… in psychology we use data which can only be psychology, responded with what was considered to be obtained when the observer and the observed are the an extreme environmentalistic stance. He summarized same person whereas in the other ways of studying Man and justified his position in a now–familiar statement, “I all our data can be obtained by observing other people.” am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the Early in the twentieth century at least three major advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for protests developed against the traditional concept of many thousands of years”. (Watson, 1970, p. 104). His introspective psychology especially as it was related to concerns and comments were a portrait of the state of depicting the analysis of conscious states. Two of the methodological, descriptive, and semantical behaviorism dissenting factions were Gestalt psychology which was in a collective effort to dispense with psychology’s founded in Germany and Freudian psychoanalysis which commitment to inner agents or explanatory fictions. ______**Address correspondence regarding this article, a commentary on Joseph Morrow’s article on Behavioral Materialism in this issue, to the author at [email protected].

Key words: behaviorism, introspection, radical behaviorism, science of behavior, behavioral materialism, behaviorology, philosophy of science, dialectical materialism, Marxism, behavior analysis Page 34 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

Behaviorism’s trend away from introspection resulted more likely effect of the word [radical] on its audience is in a natural science that rejected metaphysical concepts to suggest the secondary lexical meaning of extremism. If such as the mind, cognition, mentalism, spiritualism, one starts with the usual common misunderstandings of and introspection. B. F. Skinner was among the first to the word ‘behaviorism’ and adds ‘extremism’ to that, we explain that behaviorism, as he understood it, did include may have the basis for a complete misunderstanding.” all behavior including endosystemic or internal responses. The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus He extended the term “behaviorism” to include “radical” (American Edition) offers a primary definition of and in doing so, laid the controversy regarding internal “radical” as “fundamental, basic, elementary, inherent, behaviors to rest. His position was clearly presented and essential”. The tertiary definitions offered are when he said, “A science of behavior must consider the “drastic, fanatical, militant, left–wing”. (Abate, 1997). place of private stimuli as physical things, and in doing There seems to be little danger of the tertiary definitions so it provides an alternative account of mental life. The eclipsing the preferred meaning when using radical with question, then is this: What is inside the skin, and how behaviorism. Skinner’s (1989, p. 122) definition provides do we know about it? The answer is, I believe, the heart a source of facile dissemination, “I don’t believe I coined of radical behaviorism.” (Skinner, 1974, p. 211). a term radical behaviorism, but when asked what I mean Attempts have been made to describe behaviorism by it, I have always said, ‘the philosophy of a science of as a movement in psychology that focuses on the behavior treated as a subject matter in its own right apart external aspects of behavior thereby denying the from internal explanations, mental or physiological.” internal experiences in a manner that is reminiscent of Any concerns about the misunderstanding of the methodological aspects of Watsonian behaviorism. what “radical” is intended to impart when used with Still other attempts are suggested to recall “radical” behaviorism can be put to rest. Like most terminology behaviorism and replace it with a description consistent introduced as a neologism specific to a particular science with earlier behavioral off–shoots such as structuralism, or technology, the phrase “natural science of behaviorism” materialism, and similar philosophical paradigms that are must be presented and defined by those who are related to the concepts of the introspective consciousness competent in the theory and practice of the natural of traditional psychology. Again let Skinner speak to science of behaviorism. Consider presenting terminology the heart of radical behaviorism with, “Mentalism kept such as quantum mechanics, uncertain principle, attention away from the external antecedent events which stationary states or atomic orbitals, isotopes, exothermic might have explained behavior, by seeming to supply an or calcitonin, immunication, neuro–endocrine, to lay alternative explanation. Methodological behaviorism audiences without the assistance of physicists, chemists, did just the reverse: by dealing exclusively with external and biologists. A disaster! antecedent events it turned attention away from self– Behaviorologists are prepared and willing to advance observation and self–knowledge. Radical behaviorism the natural science of behavior by offering assistance restores some kind of balance. It does not insist upon in understanding the value of radical behaviorism and truth by agreement and can therefore consider events related terms. It would be absurd to re–label, replace, taking place in the private world within the skin.” or remove legitimate terminology of any science (Skinner, 1974, p. 16). We must not continue with the simply because a lay audience might misconstrue or outdated practice of fabricating explanatory fictions to misunderstand some lexical constructs. Any natural describe phenomena yet to be discovered and explained. science is expected to operationally define its terms with Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2014, p. 33) elaborated the intent of minimizing misunderstanding. Its objective on these essential components by pointing out that, “A is to disseminate information while avoiding any socio– firm grasp of the philosophy of radical behaviorism, in political commentary, especially in the arenas of religion, addition to knowledge of principles of behavior, can politics, personal and economics. help the scientist and practitioner resist the mentalistic Behaviorology, the natural science of behavior, is approach of dropping the search for controlling variables based on Skinner’s philosophy of radical behaviorism and in the environment and drifting toward explanatory is committed to the accumulation and dissemination of fictions in the effort to understand behavior.” These information with the understanding that, “… a primary statements of advocacy for radical behaviorism and the assumption in natural science is that a real event is logical consistency of its conceptual framework have theoretically measurable in terms of mass, time, distance, convinced those devoted to the advancement of the temperature, and charge (and perhaps some additional study of radical behaviorism. Nonetheless, there have esoteric properties to be encountered in the ken of been whispers of concern for lay audiences who might theoretical physicists). If an event cannot be measured misconstrue the word “radical” to mean “extremism”. in terms of those fundamental variables, it is not real and Morrow (2019, p. 13) addresses his concerns that “… a need not be taken into account.” (Fraley, 2008, p. 15). Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 35

When all is considered, it appears that radical References behaviorism provides a stable, clear description of what the natural science of behavior is and has been Abate, F. A. (Ed.). (1997). The Oxford Desk Dictionary attempting to accomplish since its inception more than and Thesaurus (American Edition). New York: Oxford a century ago. Ledoux (2014, p. 7) aptly put it, “We University Press. consider Skinner’s radical behaviorism, the philosophy Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2014). that extends naturalism to inform the natural science Applied Behavior Analysis. Essex, England, Pearson of behavior and its emergence organizationally as an Education Ltd. independent discipline that today we call behaviorology, Fraley, L. E. (2008). General Behaviorology: The Natural after its separation from the non–natural fundamentally Science of Human Behavior. Canton, NY: ABCs. mystical discipline of ‘behavior and the mind’.” There Ledoux, S. F. (2014). Running Out of Time: Introductory is no need to introduce yet another “behaviorism” into Behaviorology to Help Solve Global Problems. Ottawa, the exhaustive litany of metaphysical–psychological Canada: BehaveTech Publishing. behaviorisms of years past. Our energies must be Morrow, J. E. (2019). A rose by another name: Behavioral oriented toward the growth and development of a well– Materialism. Journal of Behaviorology, 22 (1–2), 13–14. founded responsible science of behavior. Radical is right Russell, B. (1967). An Introduction of Philosophy. New for behaviorism!  York: W. W. Norton. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Skinner, B. F. (1989). Recent Issues in the Analysis of Behavior. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Co. Watson, J. B. (1970). Behaviorism. New York: W. W. Norton.

More Commentaries Journal of Behaviorology will have more commentaries, as In Response articles, in the next, and possibly following, issues starting with the Spring 2020 issue, Volume 23, Number 1. Page 36 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

Quote by B. F. Skinner on the Misunderstood Value of Behavior Science In About Behavorism Skinner wrote: “Those who say that a science of behavior is oversimplified and naïve usually show an oversimplified and naïve knowledge of the science, and those who claim that what it has to say is either trivial or already well known are usually unfamiliar with its actual accomplishments.” (From the email that Julie Vargas sent on 2017 November 18 announcing that the “Issue III, 2017” issue of Operants is available). Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 37

Syllabus Directory* behg 480: Green Contingency Engineering; Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 29–31. The most recent issue of Journal of Behaviorology that behg 512: Advanced Behaviorology I; features a Syllabus Directory contains two lists of tibi’s Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 35–37. current course syllabi. These lists show where to find the behg 513: Advanced Behaviorology II; most up–to–date versions of these syllabi in number, Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 38–40. title, and content. The first list organizes the syllabi by behg 541: Advanced Verbal Behavior; numerical course number. The second list organizes the Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 41–43. syllabi by the chronological volume, number, and pages where you can find each course syllabus. Current Syllabi by Volume & Number Each of these syllabi contain only information explicit to a particular course. You will find all the relevant behg 100: Child Rearing Principles and Practices; generic information in the article, General Parameters & Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 3–5. Procedures for Courses from The International Behaviorology behg 210: Introduction to Behaviorology I; Institute, in Journal of Behaviorology, Volume 18, Number Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 6–8. 2 (Spring, 2015) pp. 3–6. behg 211: Introduction to Behaviorology II; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 9–12. Current Syllabi by Course Number behg 330: Companion Animal Training; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 13–15. behg 100: Child Rearing Principles and Practices; behg 340: Introduction to Verbal Behavior; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 3–5. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 16–18. behg 110: Introduction to Behaviorology Terminology; behg 405: Basic Autism Intervention Methods; Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 19–21. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 19–21. behg 210: Introduction to Behaviorology I; behg 425: Classroom Management and Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 6–8. Preventing School Violence; behg 211: Introduction to Behaviorology II; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 22–24. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 9–12. behg 435: Performance Management and behg 330: Companion Animal Training; Preventing Workplace Violence; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 13–15. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 25–27. behg 340: Introduction to Verbal Behavior; behg 455: Behaviorological Thanatology and Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 16–18. Dignified Dying; behg 350: Behaviorology Philosophy and History; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 28–31. Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 22–24. behg 465: Behaviorological Rehabilitation; behg 405: Basic Autism Intervention Methods; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 32–34. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 19–21. behg 512: Advanced Behaviorology I; behg 425: Classroom Management and Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 35–37. Preventing School Violence; behg 513: Advanced Behaviorology II; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 22–24. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 38–40. behg 430: Resolving Problem Animal Behavior; behg 541: Advanced Verbal Behavior; Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 25–28. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 41–43. behg 435: Performance Management and behg 110: Introduction to Behaviorology Terminology; Preventing Workplace Violence; Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 19–21. Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 25–27. behg 350: Behaviorology Philosophy and History; behg 455: Behaviorological Thanatology and Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 22–24. Dignified Dying; behg 430: Resolving Problem Animal Behavior; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 28–31. Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 25–28. behg 465: Behaviorological Rehabilitation; behg 480: Green Contingency Engineering; Volume 19, Number 2 (Fall 2016) 32–34. Volume 20, Number 1 (Spring, 2017) 29–31. —————————— *All of these tibi course syllabi were either updated in 2016 or new in 2017. Many have older version appearing in earlier issues under diﬀerent course numbers; see the Syllabus Directory in Volume 18, Number 1 (Spring 2015) for details. Page 38 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 Visit www.behaviorology.org Editorial Review Board Stay informed by visiting the  web site regularly (www.behaviorology.org). We are always adding and & Guest Reviewers updating material. You can find a wide selection of useful articles, many Editorial Review Board members: from Behaviorology Today / Journal of Behaviorology, in Adobe  format. (If you need it, you will find a 1 Dr. Traci Cihon button to click, for a free download of Adobe’s Acrobat Reader software, in the “First 10–years Archive” part 1 Mr. Chris Cryer of the site.) Also in the “First 10–years Archive,” the articles are organized on several topical category pages 1 Dr. John Ferreira (e.g., contributions to parenting and education, book reviews, and behaviorology around the world). The 1 Dr. Lawrence Fraley rest of the site features a single  for each full issue of both Behaviorology Today and Journal of Behaviorology. 1 Mr. Bruce Hamm (Editor) Other selections feature descriptions of numerous behaviorology texts and study–question books, tibi’s 1 Dr. Stephen Ledoux certificate programs, course syllabi, and links to some other helpful related web sites. Explore!  1 Mr. Werner Matthijs

1 Dr. James O’Heare

1 Ms. Katie Rinald

Guest Reviews:

1 Dr. Philip Johnson

1 Dr. Norman Peterson

1 Dr. Deborah Thomas

1 Dr. William Trumble

Back Issues & Donations Some back issues of the Journal are available; the cost is $20 each, which includes air–equivalent postage. Journal & Website To place an order: Photocopy, fill out, and send in the “membership” form on a later page of nearly every Journal Copyrights issue; check the “back issues” box, and list the volume While authors retain copyrights to their articles, and number of each back issue that you are ordering. The International Behaviorology Institute (tibi) Mail the form, with a check for the correct amount, in us holds the copyright to www.behaviorology.org and dollars made payable to tibi, to the address on the form. to Journal of Behaviorology, the tibi journal: Donations/Contributions are also welcome, and are Copyright © 2019 tibi, Inc. tax–deductible as tibi is non–profit (under 501–c–3). Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 39

Submission Guidelines and (b) must comply with the usual ethical standards relating to all research and experimental subjects. All Journal of Behaviorology (previously known as authors are required to disclose for publication any Behaviorology Today) is the fully peer–reviewed Journal possible conflicts of interest. Also, congruent with past of tibi (The International Behaviorology Institute) and practice, exclusions of important or relevant content for is published in the spring and fall of each year. length reduction will be resisted as much as possible.

To submit items, contact the current Action Editor: Mechanics Dr. James O’Heare Authors are encouraged to contact the editor to Companion Animal Sciences Institute discuss their manuscript prior to submission and to 1333 Rainbow Crescent answer questions and clarify procedures and processes. Ottawa Ontario kij 8e3 Initially, a paper should be submitted to the editor by canada email as a pdf attachment. E–mail: [email protected] The email will contain a cover letter. This letter should describe the article, and the work or history Considerations behind it, and will include the author name(s), The Journal entertains experimental or applied aYliation(s), addresses, phone numbers, paper title, research papers and theoretical or conceptual or footnotes (e.g., acknowledgements, disclosures, and literature review articles (all of which will have at least email or other contact information for publication) as three reviewers) as well as Book Reviews, On Terms, well as comprehensive contact information on up to six In Response, and program descriptions (two reviewers) suggestions for possible reviewers. plus letters, memorials, etc. The members of the tibi The pdf document (a) should have only the author’s Board of Directors constitute the basic Editorial Review name in the file name (which the Editor will record with Board (erb) on which others can serve as members or the assigned manuscript number while replacing the guests. Authors will not be identified to reviewers and name with the number in the file name before sending reviewers will not be identified to authors, except when the manuscript pdf file out to reviewers), (b) shoulduse they opt to sign their reviews. (Some reviewers prefer the standard style exemplified by papers in past issues of the to sign, usually in acknowledgement of the additional journal (as tibi is uncommitted to any particular, formal assistance that they are prepared to offer the author.) “style”), and (c) should come from a Word–format Each reviewer will provide constructive feedback as well document set in 12 point type on 24 point leading (i.e., as a recommendation: accept, or accept with revisions, or double spaced) with 1.25 inch side margins and 0.75 inch revise and resubmit, or reject. top and bottom margins, excluding the title header and Based on the set of reviewer recommendations and page–number footer (i.e., all text parts of the piece— comments, the Editor will convey the feedback and including tables, figures, photos, etc.—fit in text blocks summary decision to the author(s). With assistance from that are 6.0 inches wide and 9.5 inches tall, with the title members of the erb, the Editor will also provide authors header just above this block and the page–number footer with guidance to shape the best manuscripts possible in a just below this block). These measurements are for us reasonable time frame. letter size paper; for other paper sizes, the text block size All accepted pieces must contribute to the and top margin remain the same while the other margins behaviorology discipline (e.g., by relating to or clarifying will change as needed. The text parts of the paper start or expanding some aspect of the discipline such as the with the title, then an abstract, and a list of “Key Words” philosophical, conceptual, theoretical, experimental, for indexing purposes, followed by the body of the piece applied, or interdisciplinary aspects). Accepted pieces plus references and figures or tables.Work all footnote must also be crafted in ways that convey as much material into the text. Upon acceptance, papers should be consistency as possible with the principles, concepts, provided to the editor as a Word–format document along practices, philosophy, and terminology of the discipline. with a new pdf of the Word file (to verify the accuracy of Research paper authors (a) must obtain any necessary content transfers during page–layout operations). permissions or approvals from the Human–Subjects Note: Authors’ views need not coincide with official Review Committee of their aYliated campus or agency, positions of tibi, and authors retain copyrights.1 Page 40 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 TIBIA Membership Costs contact with the organization, receive its publications, & Criteria & Benefits and participate in its activities, but who are neither students nor professional behaviorologists. Benefits he intrinsic value of  membership rests on include all those from the previous levels plus these: giving the member status as a contributing part of an Access both to additional activity options at the interface organization helping to extend and disseminate the of their interests and behaviorology, and to advanced findings and applications of the natural science of membership levels for those acquiring the additional behavior, behaviorology, for the benefit of humanity. The qualifications that come from pursuing behaviorology levels of  membership include one “free” level and academic training. On the basis of having earned an four paid levels, which have increasing amounts of basic appropriate degree or  Certificate, Affiliate members benefits. The four annual paid membership levels are may apply for, or be invited to, Associate membership. Student, Affiliate, Associate, and Advocate. The Student $60 Associate membership (requires completed and Affiliate are non–voting categories, and the Associate paper application and annual dues payment). This level and Advocate are voting categories. All new members is only available to qualifying individuals. Admission are admitted provisionally to  at the appropriate to  in the Associate membership category is membership level. Advocate members consider each open to all who are not students, who document a provisional member and then vote on whether to behaviorological repertoire at or above the masters level elect each provisional member to the full status of her (such as by attaining a masters–level  Certificate or his membership level or to accept the provisional or a masters degree in behaviorology or in an accepted member at a different membership level. Here are all the area) and who maintain a good record—often typical of membership levels and their criteria and basic benefits “early–career” professionals—of professional activities (with dues details under TIBIA Membership Cost Details or accomplishments of a behaviorological nature that on the application–form page): support the integrity of the organized, independent Free–online membership. Online visitors receive discipline of behaviorology including its organizational access (a) to past Behaviorology Today and Journal of manifestations such as  and . Benefits include Behaviorology articles and issues, (b) to accumulating all those from the previous levels plus  voting rights, news items, (c) to Institute information regarding  and access to contributing by accepting appointment Certificates and course syllabi, (d) to selected links to a  or  position of interest. On the basis of of other organizations, and (e) to other science and documenting a behaviorological repertoire at the doctoral organization features. level, an Associate member may apply for, or be invited $20 Behaviorology Student membership (requires to, Advocate membership. completed paper application, co–signed by department $80 Advocate membership (requires completed chair or advisor, and annual dues payment). Admission paper application and annual dues payment). This level to  in the Student membership category is open to is only available to qualifying individuals. Admission to all undergraduate or graduate students in behaviorology  in the Advocate membership category is open to all or in an acceptably appropriate area. Benefits include who are not students, who document a behaviorological all those from the previous membership level plus repertoire at the doctoral level (such as by attaining a these: (a) a subscription to—and thus immediate postal doctoral–level  Certificate or a doctoral degree in delivery of—each new paper–printed issue of Journal behaviorology or in an accepted area), who maintain a of Behaviorology (issn 1536–6669), (b) access to special good record of professional activities or accomplishments organizational activities (e.g., invitations to attend of a behaviorological nature, and who demonstrate and participate in, and present at,  conferences, a significant history—usually typical for experienced conventions, workshops, etc.) and (c) access to available professionals—of work supporting the integrity of the  member contact information. organized, independent discipline of behaviorology $40 Affiliate membership (requires completed paper including its organizational manifestations such as  application and annual dues payment). Admission to and . Benefits include all those from the previous  in the Affiliate membership category is open to all levels plus access to contributing by accepting election to who wish to follow disciplinary developments, maintain a  or  position of interest. Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 41 TIBIA Membership Affiliate The lesser of 0.2% of Cost Details member annual income, or $40.oo Establishing the annual dues structure for the different Associate The lesser of 0.3% of membership categories takes partially into account, by member annual income, or $60.oo means of percentages of annual income, the differences in income levels and currency values among the world’s Advocate The lesser of 0.4% of various countries and economies. Thus, the annual dues member annual income, or $80.oo for each membership (or other) category are: ——————————————————– CATEGORY DUES (in US dollars)* Member of Board of Directors: Student The lesser of 0.1% of The lesser of 0.6% of member annual income, or $20.oo annual income, or $300.oo ______———–——————————————— (Retired Associate, Advocate, or Board Members: *Minimums: $20 Board Member; $10 others … 50% less) Tibia Membership Application Form (For contributions, a form ensures acknowledgement but is not required.) Copy and complete this form (please type or Mr. Chris Cryer Check if applies: print)—for membership, contributions, back Tibia Treasurer Contribution: issues, or subscriptions—and send it with your 406 North Meadow Drive Subscriptions:* Back issues:** Ogdensburg ny 13669 check (made payable to tibia in us dollars)  Vol. ___, #___ to the tibia treasurer at this address: usa  Vol. ___, #___

Name: Membership (category):

Oﬃce Address: Amount enclosed: $

Home Address:

Oﬃce Phone #: Home Phone #:

F #: CHECK PREFERRED MAILING ADDRESS:

E-mail: Oﬃce: Home:

Degree/Institution:*** Sign & Date: *Subscriptions are $40 annually, the same as aYliate membership. **Back issues: $20 each. ***For Student Membership: I verify that the above person is enrolled as a student at:

Name & Signature of advisor or Dept. Chair: Page 42 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

TIBI/TIBIA Purposes* b. to nurture experimental and applied research analyzing the effects of physical, biological, T, as a non–profit educational corporation, is behavioral, and cultural variables on the behavior of dedicated to many concerns. T is dedicated to organisms, with selection by consequences being an teaching behaviorology, especially to those who do not important causal mode relating these variables at the have university behaviorology departments or programs different levels of organization in the life sciences; available to them. ti is also dedicated to expanding c. to extend technological application of behaviorological and disseminating the behaviorological literature at least research results to areas of human concern; through the fully peer–reviewed Journal of Behaviorology d. to interpret, consistent with scientific foundations, (originally called TIBI News Time and then Behaviorology complex behavioral relations; Today) with editors being appointed by the  Board e. to support methodologies relevant to the scientific of Directors, usually from among the  Advocate analysis, interpretation, and change of both behavior members.  is a professional organization also and its relations with other events; dedicated to organizing behaviorological scientists and f. to sustain scientific study in diverse specialized areas practitioners into an association (The International of behaviorological phenomena; Behaviorology Institute Association—) so they g. to integrate the concepts, data, and technologies of can engage in coordinated activities that carry out the the discipline’s various sub–fields; purposes of /. These activities include (a) h. to develop a verbal community of behaviorologists; encouraging and assisting members to host visiting i. to assist programs and departments of behaviorology scholars who are studying behaviorology as well as to teach the philosophical foundations, scientific holding conventions and conferences; (b) enabling  analyses and methodologies, and technological faculty to arrange or provide training for behaviorology extensions of the discipline; students; and (c) providing  certificates to students j. to promote a scientific “Behavior Literacy” graduation who successfully complete specified behaviorology requirement of appropriate content and depth at all curriculum requirements). And  is a professional levels of educational institutions from kindergarten organization dedicated to representing and developing through university; the philosophical, conceptual, analytical, experimental, k. to encourage the full use of behaviorology as the and technological components of the discipline of essential scientific foundation for behavior related behaviorology, the comprehensive natural science work within all fields of human affairs; discipline of the functional relations between behavior l. to cooperate on mutually important concerns with and independent variables including determinants from other humanistic and scientific disciplines and the environment, both socio–cultural and physical, as technological fields where their members pursue well as determinants from the biological history of the interests overlapping those of behaviorologists; and species. Therefore, recognizing that behaviorology’s m. to communicate to the general public the importance principles and contributions are generally relevant to all of the behaviorological perspective for the cultures and species, the purposes of  and  are: development, well–being, and survival of humankind. ______a. to foster the philosophy of science known as *Adapted from the 2017–updated tibi By–Laws.1 radical behaviorism; Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019 (issn 2331–0774) Page 43

About Behaviorology, tibi, and Journal of Behaviorology

Behaviorology is an independently organized discipline featuring the natural science of behavior. Behaviorologists study the functional relations between behavior and its independent variables in the behavior–determining environment. Behaviorological accounts are based on the behavioral capacity of the species, the personal history of the behaving organism, and the current physical and social environment in which behavior occurs. Behaviorologists discover the natural laws governing behavior. They then develop beneficial contingency–engineering technologies applicable to behavior– related concerns in all fields including child rearing, education, employment, entertainment, government, law, marketing, medicine, and self–management. Behaviorology features strictly natural accounts for behavioral events. In this way behaviorology differs from disciplines that entertain fundamentally superstitious assumptions about humans and their behavior. Behaviorology excludes the mystical notion of a rather spontaneous origination of behavior by the willful action of ethereal, body–dwelling agents connoted by such terms as mind, psyche, self, muse, or even pronouns like I, me, and you. As part of the organizational structure of the independent natural science of behavior, The International Behaviorology Institute (tibi), a non– profit organization, exists (a) to arrange professional activities for behaviorologists and supportive others, and (b) to focus behaviorological philosophy and science on a broad range of cultural concerns. And Journal of Behaviorology is the referred journal of the Institute. Journal authors write on the full range of disciplinary topics including history, philosophy, concepts, principles, and experimental and applied research. Join us and support bringing the benefits of behaviorology to humanity. (Contributions to tibi or tibia—the professional organization arm of tibi—are tax deductible.) Page 44 (issn 2331–0774) Journal of ehaviorology  Volume 22, Numbers 1 & 2, Spring & Fall 2019

Bruce Hamm, .a., , a (JoB Editor) tibi Ba–M Ca : Director, Blackbird Academy of Childhood Education Vancouver bc [email protected] Traci Cihon, h.., , a– Dept. of Behavior Analysis, UNT Stephen F. Ledoux, h..,  (JoB Co–Managing Ed.) Denton tx Professor Emeritus, SUNY–Canton [email protected] [email protected] Chris Cryer, .a., , a, a (tibi Treasurer) Werner Matthijs, .a.,  St. Lawrence NYSARC Team Coördinator van de Toegepaste Gedragsologie Canton ny Universitair Psychiatrisch Centrum Sint Kamillus, [email protected] Bierbeek Belgium (Retired) [email protected] John B. Ferreira, h.., ,  Ess–Plus Behaviorological Counseling (Retired) James O’Heare,  (tibi Board Chair) Mattapoisett ma Companion Animal Sciences Institute [email protected] [email protected] Lawrence E. Fraley, d..,  Katie Rinald, .a., a,  Professor (Retired) Blackbird Academy of Childhood Education West Virginia University at Morgantown Vancouver bc [email protected] [email protected]

Journal of Behaviorology

Bruce Hamm, bcba, Editor 2922 East Kent Avenue South #14 Vancouver bc v5s 0g8 canada